The Second High-Level Meeting (HLM2) of the Global Partnership solidified the Partnership as an essential part of the ‘how’ to work with all partners and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Hosted by the government of Kenya, and attended by more than 4,600 delegates from 157 countries including heads of state and government, ministers, parliamentarians and leaders from international organisations, business, civil society and foundations, participants attended seven plenary sessions, 10 Amphitheatre sessions, 57 side events and 120 exhibitions to:

  • Take stock of the implementation of the internationally-agreed development effectiveness principles and commitments
  • Provide a learning space on development effectiveness, showcasing successful examples
  • Identify innovative approaches to sustainable development that can be scaled up
  • Position the Global Partnership to effectively contribute to implementation of the SDGs and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda
  • Produce the Nairobi Outcome Document, charting a path forward for all development actors to realise their complementary contributions to implementing Agenda 2030 and realising the SDGs

The Nairobi Outcome Document

The Outcome Document was endorsed at the High-Level Meeting, charting a path forward for all development actors to realise their complementary contributions to implementing Agenda 2030 and realizing the SDGs.

Read the Nairobi Outcome Document

12 Reasons Why HLM2 Mattered

HLM2 Event Materials

HLM2 Agenda and Logistical Note

Organising the HLM2

The HLM2 was organised by the Government of Kenya with support from the Global Partnership’s three co-chairs (Malawi, Mexico and the Netherlands), Steering Committee members and the Joint Support Team provided by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations Development Programme. The Government of Kenya and the Global Partnership’s Co-Chairs called on the international community to participate and provide the financial, technical and necessary support required to ensure a successful HLM2 and realisation of the 2030 Agenda.

Accelerated efforts were needed by all partners to unleash the power of youth and women as dynamic contributors to society. The Government of Kenya led special focus discussions on economic empowerment of women and youth – inclusivity and mainstreaming for effective and accelerated development at the HLM2.

Preparatory Days

HLM2 was preceded by two preparatory days (28–29 November, 2016), providing the opportunity for a range of stakeholders to meet in advance of the High-level Ministerial segment. Forums were planned for youth and women on Monday 28 November, and for civil society, parliamentarians, foundations and the private sector on Tuesday 29 November. A workshop to consider findings from the Global Partnership’s second monitoring round was held on Tuesday 29 November and the findings provided timely input into the discussions at forums.

High-Level Ministerial Segment

The two-day high-level meeting (30 November–1 December 2016) offered a unique platform for heads of state, ministers, heads of major international organisations and leaders from civil society, the private sector, foundations, local government and parliaments to showcase successes and identify innovative approaches. The meeting included seven plenary sessions, parallel discussions on bottlenecks, a series of side events and marketplace stalls for showcasing successful innovation, implementation, and sharing knowledge.

Plenary Sessions Focus

HLM2 plenary sessions focused on:

  • Progress and challenges for effective development
  • How effective development can deliver the SDGs
  • Learning from south-south and triangular co-operation
  • Economic empowerment of women and youth
  • Leaving no-one behind
  • Inclusive multi-stakeholder partnerships
  • The private sector’s contribution to sustainable development
Side Events and Market Place Exhibitions

Agenda

Download Side Events as PDF

(Last update: 29 November, 2016)

At the margins of main plenary sessions, the HLM2 side events enabled interactive multi-stakeholder dialogue on improving the effectiveness of development co-operation, and the HLM2 Market Place provided a space to showcase relevant programs, products and services, and share knowledge products on good practices and lessons learned in implementing effective development co-operation principles at national, regional and global levels.

All side events were held at KICC, either in conference rooms or in tents on the KICC grounds. The conference rooms were Shimba Hills, Lenana, Aberdares, Impala/ Turkana, Taifa, and the Amphitheatre and the tent venues were Flamingo, Heron, Sunbird, Peacock, Robin.

Agenda

Agenda

Download Agenda as PDF ( ES / FR )

(Last update: 28 November, 2016)

28novAll DayYouth Forum - Creating an Enabling Environment for Meaningful Youth Involvement in the Development Effectiveness Agenda: from Presence to Influence(All Day: monday) Event Type :Global Partnership

28novAll DayWomen’s Forum - Keeping Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment Front and Centre of the Development Effectiveness Agenda(All Day: monday) Event Type :Global Partnership

28novAll DayDevelopment Finance Assessment Symposium - Financing the SDGs in the Era of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda(All Day: monday) Taifa RoomEvent Type :Global Partnership

29nov10:00 am6:00 pmBusiness Forum10:00 am - 6:00 pm Aberdare RoomEvent Type :Global Partnership

29nov7:30 am6:00 pmNairobi Civil Society Forum - Universal Effective Development Cooperation Towards a Peoples’ Agenda7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pride Inn Conference Centre (off-site)Event Type :Global Partnership

29nov8:30 am6:00 pmPhilanthropy Forum - Partnering for Development: A Balancing Act8:30 am - 6:00 pm Impala / Turkana RoomEvent Type :Global Partnership

29nov9:30 am6:30 pmParliamentary Forum - Development Co-operation in the Age of the Sustainable Development Goals: Strengthening the Role of Parliaments9:30 am - 6:30 pm Lenana RoomEvent Type :Global Partnership

29nov8:30 am6:00 pmWorkshop on the Monitoring of Effective Development Co-operation - What have we achieved; how can we do better?8:30 am - 6:00 pm AmpitheatreEvent Type :Global Partnership,Regional Workshop

29nov8:30 am6:00 pmINCAF Director Level Meeting - (Closed Meeting)8:30 am - 6:00 pm Taifa RoomEvent Type :Global Partnership

november 2016

30nov8:00 am9:00 amSide Events8:00 am - 9:00 am Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov9:00 am9:45 amAmphitheatre Session - What Do We Gain Or Lose By Expanding the Development Effectiveness Agenda?9:00 am - 9:45 am Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov9:00 am10:30 amPlenary Session - Taking Stock: Progress and Challenges for Effective Development9:00 am - 10:30 am Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov9:45 am10:30 amAmphitheatre Session - Sustainable Development and its Financing: the Use of Country-led Results Frameworks9:45 am - 10:30 am Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov10:30 am11:00 amCoffee Break10:30 am - 11:00 am Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov11:00 am12:00 pmOpening Ceremony11:00 am - 12:00 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov12:00 pm1:30 pmHigh-Level Interactive Dialogue - Unleashing the Potential of Development Co-operation to Attract Private Investment12:00 pm - 1:30 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov1:30 pm3:30 pmLunch Break1:30 pm - 3:30 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov1:30 pm2:30 pmSide Events1:30 pm - 2:30 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov2:30 pm3:30 pmSide Events2:30 pm - 3:30 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov3:30 pm3:45 pmCoffee Break3:30 pm - 3:45 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov3:45 pm5:15 pmPlenary Session - Moving Forward: How Effective Development Can Deliver the 2030 Agenda3:45 pm - 5:15 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov3:45 pm5:15 pmAmphitheatre Session - Get in the Ring Nairobi: Start Me Up Africa!3:45 pm - 5:15 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov5:30 pm6:15 pmAmphitheatre Session - South-South Partnerships for Africa’s Development: Improving Accountability5:30 pm - 6:15 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov5:30 pm7:00 pmPlenary Session - Our Shared Future: Achieving Prosperous Business, Thriving Society, and a Healthy Environment5:30 pm - 7:00 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov6:15 pm7:00 pmAmphitheatre Session - Multi-dimensional Poverty: Southern Experiences6:15 pm - 7:00 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

30nov7:00 pmDinner Reception and Cultural Night7:00 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

Plenary event details are subject to change.

december 2016

01dec7:30 am8:30 amSide Events7:30 am - 8:30 am Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec8:30 am9:15 amAmphitheatre Session - Recognizing and Valuing Women’s Contribution in Economic Development8:30 am - 9:15 am Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec8:30 am10:00 amPlenary Session - Inclusive and Effective Development Cooperation to Achieve the SDGs: Lessons Learned from South-South and Triangular Cooperation8:30 am - 10:00 am Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec9:15 am10:00 amAmphitheatre Session - An Indicator on Youth in the Monitoring Framework: the Missing Link?9:15 am - 10:00 am Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec10:00 am10:30 amCoffee Break10:00 am - 10:30 am Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec10:30 am11:15 amAmphitheatre Session - Leaving No-One Behind and Country Ownership: A Contradiction?10:30 am - 11:15 am Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec10:30 am12:00 pmPlenary Session - Economic Empowerment of Women and Youth: Inclusivity and Mainstreaming for Effective and Accelerated Development10:30 am - 12:00 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec11:15 am12:00 pmAmphitheatre Session - Eradicating Poverty in Middle-Income Countries: Whose Responsibility?11:15 am - 12:00 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec12:00 pm1:00 pmSide Events12:00 pm - 1:00 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec12:00 pm2:00 pmLunch Break12:00 pm - 2:00 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec1:00 pm2:00 pmSide Events1:00 pm - 2:00 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec2:00 pm2:45 pmAmphitheatre Session - Enabling Environment for Partnerships2:00 pm - 2:45 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec2:00 pm3:30 pmPlenary Session - Our Greatest Challenge: Leaving No-One Behind2:00 pm - 3:30 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec2:45 pm3:30 pmAmphitheatre Session - Improving the Quality of Partnerships2:45 pm - 3:30 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec3:30 pm3:45 pmCoffee Break3:30 pm - 3:45 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec3:45 pm5:15 pmPlenary Session - From Global Goals to Action: Unleashing the Power of Partnerships3:45 pm - 5:15 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

01dec5:30 pm6:30 pmClosing Ceremony5:30 pm - 6:30 pm Event Type :2016 High-Level Meeting

Plenary event details are subject to change.

HLM2 Archived Discussions

Read the Global Consultations Synthesis Report

Help Shape the Future of Development Co-operation, Join the HLM2 Online Discussions!

We are less than two months away from HLM2; the Second High-Level Meeting of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation. On 1st December 2016, national and sub-national governments, the business sector, civil society, trade unions, foundations, the heads of international development organisations and many more will meet to adopt the Nairobi Outcome Document. This document will contain commitments on development co-operation that stakeholders intend to support to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. HLM2 will be the only event in 2016 focused explicitly on development co-operation under Sustainable Development Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals.

You can help shape this outcome! By participating in this online discussion, your ideas will inform the Nairobi Outcome Document.

From 12th October to 15th November, join the discussion convened by the Global Partnership and be heard on the following themes:

  1. Actions to improve the effectiveness of development co-operation;
  2. Leaving no-one behind; and
  3. Maximising the contribution of development practitioners – a multi-stakeholder approach.

To be notified when new discussions begin, please join our bi-monthly newsletter list.

Moderators

Effective use of finance is key in pursuing effective and sustainable development. Cooperation is part of this finance, making it imperative that countries that receive it lead actions to improve effectiveness and impact on the lives of citizens.

In this context, at the 4 th High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan in 2011, countries agreed to continue working on unfinished business endorsed in the Paris Declaration, as well as support new actors for stronger ownership in an enabling environment to implement national development plans, ensuring that development cooperation follows effectiveness principles such as transparency, predictability and use of country systems.

The experience of managing development cooperation under Paris Declaration principles provided important lessons to the new cooperation arquitecture that has been established since Busan-e.g. avoiding fragmentation, promoting complementarity, improving predictability, ensuring country ownership and alignment with national development plans. Thus, this online consultation proves to be a great opportunity to advance dialogue on key actions in a reinforcing dynamic and feed the debate that will take place in the upcoming High-Level Meeting in Nairobi. This is also a valuable opportunity to collect thoughts on how to improve the effectiveness of development cooperation from different regions, taking a look at how the regional level may complement efforts from countries at the national level.

For these reasons, it is important to share insights as well as practical experiences in improving the effectiveness of development cooperation…the following set of questions may be the first inspirational step that triggers a robust and earnest discussion that may lead to a rich exchange of practical expriences in Nairobi.

Busan Outcome Document

Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness:

  1. What improvements (and in which areas) have you experienced in development co-operation, provided to developing countries between 2012 and 2016?
  2. In what area(s) have you experienced little or no improvement in development co-operation provided to developing countries between 2012 and 2016?
  3. What additional (innovative?) actions might specific development practitioners take to improve the effectiveness of development cooperation in developing countries in the next five years?

Uneven and fragile delivery experience of the MDGs across and within countries underpinned the need for explicit incorporation of inclusivity in the new international development agenda. This profound realisation was expressed through the aspirational articulation “leaving no one behind” in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. However, implementation modalities of this much vaunted principle of distributive justice is now in need of clarification and elucidation.

Challenges that call for incisive addressing relate to identification and prioritisation of the groups who may potentially be excluded in a certain context; what types of policy interventions and institutional measures will ensure that these groups are not left behind; how these approaches could be mixed according to varied contextual realities. Moreover, it will be important to understand how the objective of leaving no one behind would be reflected in the follow-up and review process of the new global agenda.

In view of the above, two issues particularly stand out for critical consideration. First, how would one overcome the challenges of the lack of relevant disaggregated data that would be necessary for identifying the target population as well as monitoring the progress achieved. Second, what new demands will be faced by the international development cooperation system in order to comply with the principle of leaving no one behind. This would call for development practitioners to explore innovative and efficient ways to reach out to the marginal groups and countries.

The present online discussion seeks to address the above-mentioned issues and much more.

  1. How do we identify those most at risk of being left behind in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? What country, or type of country are they most likely to be from: conflict/crisis, LIC, petroleum exporting, etc. What other groups beyond women, child, seniors and indigenous people are most at risk?
  2. In addition to general public support systems or universal ones, what innovative actions might governments take to address the needs of the people at most risk of being left behind?
  3. What practices exist in the area of targeting the population at most risk of being left behind, that development practitioners can adopt to increase the efficiency and impact of what they do. Please provide examples on how development cooperation can be more effective for the people who are usually left behind?

The Busan High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF4) was pivotal in consolidating the principle of inclusion as central to effective development cooperation The principle of inclusive partnerships highlights that development depends on the participation of all actors, and recognizes the diversity and complementarity of their functions.

A truly multi stakeholder process is one that encompasses the diversity of all development actors; it offers a framework for continued dialogue and efforts to enhance the effectiveness of development co-operation by tapping into the energies and resources of all the stakeholders in seeking solutions to a community and global problem. With such a partnership, development can realize its transformative potential.

The implications of inclusive partnerships are numerous and merit full attention, more so in light of the recognition that inclusiveness must be at the heart of the SDG agenda. The benefits of effective partnerships, however, do not appear overnight. Establishing an inclusive process takes time, and requires the right framework, one with a governance structure that truly reflects the multi-stakeholder nature of development today.

Only then can development partners, governments, civil society, parliamentarians and other key stakeholders in development be able to participate and work in partnership to design and implement development policies and programs that transform people’s lives. Important to note is that openness, trust, mutual respect and learning, lie at the core of inclusive partnerships and any multi stakeholder process in support of development goals. Furthermore recognizing the different and complementary roles of all actors remains key to any multi stakeholder process.

  1. What example have you experienced where development practitioners have worked well together to support sustainable development in your community or Country?
  2. In your experience, which development practitioners work best together and what are the preconditions for this to happen?
  3. What actions might you as a development practitioner take to improve the way you work together with other practitioners to achieve sustainable development?

Related News and Blogs

127 thoughts on “Second High-Level Meeting

  1. You can help shape the Nairobi Outcome Document! If you participate in this online global consultation with ideas and recommendations, you can be sure that we will do our best to channel them into the negotiated Outcome Document that will be adopted on December 1. From October 5th to November 15th, you can join us in the online discussion convened by the Global Partnership, and be a true building block that makes SDG # 17 on Partnerships for the Goals come alive in your country and region. Welcome to this online discussion!

  2. To improve effectiveness of development cooperation we need a stronger ownership by countries. Yes, they all may have national development plans, but the lack of key actors and indicators may also affects effectiveness principles due to a weak tracking of actions or institutional inefficiency. Are we facing the need of another bureaucracy step in each country by creating a special entity that ensures effectiveness in cooperation? Are we ready to reach a full implementation of the global Sustainable Development Goals by 2030?

    1. You are right: ensuring aid effectiveness and a full implementation of the SDGs require strong ownership in Partner Countries. Full ownership in countries implies having robust monitoring frameworks, as well as government officials that are fully aware of effectiveness principles and committed in implementing them. In order to implement the SDGs, We must all help each other strengthen 3 important Cs: commitments, capacities and communication

  3. What I have seen improve over time is the capacity to tackle issues, both in numbers of experts and in the professional qualifications they have. While still not enough in many developing countries, the challenge is now to enable and empower capacity.
    However, what did not improve is the international context. Many OECD countries are giving generously with one hand and take it back manifold with the other. Foreign Direct Investment is seen by many as a panacea for capital increase in developing countries, but many international corporations mainly increase their own capital, and more importantly, their revenues.
    The discontinuity between words and action is increasingly well perceived by countries and populations, unfortunately leading to election results that move away from global action to isolation or increasingly populist governments. The greatest challenge governments, civil society and the private sector face is to become coherent again to their own people and to their own societies.

    1. I fully agree, and the key word here is coherence. Fortunately, and hopefully, the SDGs under Goal 17 are supporting the development of solutions towards more coherence, and more specifically under the sub-section on systemic issues (17.13 to17.19). A coherence should be maintained among more sophisticated and sometimes intricate and competing means of implementation but also among the expanded number of objectives that invite or include a greater number of partners with modes of operations and of assessment of results that differ. Akin to the notion, and to the challenge, of coherence is the one of (growing) inequality that appears to be a by-product of the current economic machinery and that has historically been tackled through political and social means (see “Foreign Affairs”, Jan.-Feb. 2016). Fighting inequality is at the heart of development cooperation since its inception, and one of its distinctive features that should be preserved, as expressed in the “Leaving No One Behind” spirit, if one wishes to avoid the serious risk of dilution of the Global Partnership mandate. Beyond policy measures, capacity-building, specifically aimed at under SDG 17.9, should be conceived, resourced and monitored much more closely than in the past, with the support of the Global Partnership, if development cooperation partners ambition to evidence their determination to effectiveness in fighting disparities among nations and peoples.

      1. Correct: Fighting inequality is at the heart of development cooperation since its inception.

        And I thoroughly agree: capacity-building should be conceived, resourced and monitored much more closely than in the past with the support of the Global Partnership.

    2. This is an extremely important reflection on the international context that Rob has shared. Yes, It is key to analyze the contexts in OECD countries, and look very closely at Foreign Direct Investments. Countries are doing enormous efforts to attract Foreign Direct Investments, because it is seen as a catalyst for development and a vehicle for job creation. Nonetheless, what we have seen in our countries is that many multinationals establish poor working conditions and use their money to influence politics and bypass national laws, without necessarily distributing wealth.

      The disconnect between words and action must be solved, if we want to strive for development effectiveness. As you have correctly pointed out: we need policy coherence in ALL countries-whether OECD or not. We need to make sure that Governments, CSOs and private sector actors seek policy coherence and work hard to improve this situation you have pointed out.

    3. I have continued to reflect on your comment: there must be policy coherence in all providers-whether they are OECD countries or not-so that the funding and contributions they give is coherent with the notion that cooperation fights inequality.

      Supply-driven cooperation can not be effective. Tied development aid and conditionalities can not be effective, neither. How can we change these business-as-usual practices?

  4. The three Paris Declarations Surveys and the Independent Paris Declaration Evaluation (2006, 2009, 2010) indicated that partner countries had complied more with the aid effectiveness principles, because they had advanced more in the indicators than the Donors.

    Goverments of Partners Countries must engage in frank dialogue with donors and insist that donors change old and traditional practices that result in AID uneffectiveness. These old practices are still business as usual work in our countries: 1- Donors in the driver seat; 2- Lack of alignment to country development plans and Country Results Frameworks; 3- Lack of coordination with others donors; 4- Tied AID; 5- Conditionalies; 6- AID off-budget; (7) non-use of country systems and 7- Lack of transparency.

    When will donors advance to resolve these issues?
    How can goverments and civil society push donors to change these old practices that lead to aid uneffectiveness?
    How to help donors change their mindset?

    These are important questions that require reflection, thought and immediate actions.

    1. This is a very deep comment; it is a powerful reflection. It is urgent for Development Partners to engage in a change-management process within their agencies and banks-for the sake of making cooperation more effective.

      Perhaps then we could all see that the effectiveness principles are being implemented by key development actors.

      If Partner Governments insist, the message will finally get there-loud and clear!

  5. I would like to thank all of you who have taken the time to participate in this online dialogue. As a Kenyan I would like to see a successful Nairobi Outcome Document. It is through your efforts and of other like minded people that will ensure that there is development impact achieved through transparency and accountability. If there was an open invitation for ordinary citizens for the meeting it is something that I would not miss.

    1. We are all Nairobi! There are extremely high expectations for Nairobi and it is key to ensure as much contributions as possible!

  6. Thank you for the invitation. HLM2 should be a success,given in the context of raising climate changes,an awareness among the population to contain the climate changes ,which are particularly man made.Logically we need to reach the secondary markets of motor cycles,cars,paper manufacturers and users.
    Every small item contributes to some change which becomes a big problem as the time goes on.

    1. I agree! If we disseminate and transfer effectiveness principles to the sectors where the funding is being implemented, and work hard for the principles to be applied IN and WITHIN the sectors-such as health, education, climate change, energy, infrastructure, etc.-I am sure the world will start sowing impacts.

      I have noted that if you engage in dialogue with a government or donor functionary who works in a particular sector, and you ask them if they are aware of the effectiveness principles, Paris Declaration or Busan or the GPEDC, they will regularly tell you they know nothing.

      We can not continue to talk about effectiveness principles among ourselves! We must go out and preach to those who are the implementors…

      Normally, in a cooperation agency, there might be a small effectiveness unit who is engaged in the GPEDC and such-but the sector units, who look after implementation, scarcely know about it or about effectiveness principles.

      So, Partner country officials are many times providing “training” to donor partners in the field, at the country level.

      It rounds up to having a deep need to develop capacities in Development Partners or donor agencies in what cooperation effectiveness is.

      Who should be responsible for this?

  7. I had extensive discussions at #IODC16 in Madrid and identified that rejected funding requests is largely unshared or uncollated data and a key opportunity to increase effectiveness via existing mechanisms such as the IATI registry.

    For example, the Guernsey Overseas Aid Commission annual report 2013 pages 35-40 itemises rejected funding requests:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/efe08be873ab93988968874e80a636767bbd89149e98a45d2cc6dfec62fa28e5.png

    Graeme Jones
    founder, openmindedly.com
    policy analyst, isle of man parliament

    1. Transparency is a big word! It is also a principle for ensuring effective cooperation!

      I think the IATI registry would do us all an enormous contribution if rejected funding requests are also disclosed!

      Who should be responsible for providing this information to IATI?

      1. most donors do not include in annual reports etc mostly because they probably do not realise it would be an enormous contribution!

        if IATI technical notes — perhaps a version amendment — highlighted importance, more donors would then disclose by default and secondary publishers could ask or submit an FOIA/RTI request

        i guess the IATI steering committee or technical advisory group need to be responsible for a straw poll or more formal agenda item to discuss how best to code rejection data in order to progress

        it would have instant value with relative contributions to requested funding / actual funding, minimise unproductive funding requests, awarded but unclaimed funding (administrative issues), anti-fraud, successful/unsuccessful request percentages (i think guernsey government fund 15-20 percent requests), early warning signs on financials, etc.

        1. This is certainly a great suggestion. Let’s contact the IATI colleagues and explore feasibilities!

    2. Graeme Jones – many thanks for this suggestion and Lidia Fromm Cea – for highlighting this important point. IATI is committed to continually improving the IATI Standard and we have an ongoing consultation process for modifications, additions and improvements. We welcome and encourage contributions from all, which can be made on our online forum, IATI Discuss: http://discuss.iatistandard.org/c/standard-management/l/top.

      Many thanks,
      Annelise, Coordinator, IATI Secretariat.

  8. I am happy and feel honored to be a part of this discussion. I think Development Corporations and Funding Agencies should have special Considerations for Community Based Organisations if we much achieve the slogan ” Living no one behind”. Our societies are stratified with people from different social backgrounds, Class and religion. I think if investments are made to build the capacity of Community based Organisations they will be better placed to handle developmental challenges and the impact will be felt at all Levels.

    1. I agree! The Leaving No One Behind slogan should become more than words: it should become a business-as-usual practice for ensuring effective cooperation.

      Leaving no one behind requires that cooperating agencies and partners harmonize procedures and strengthen coordination in the field, in order to reduce duplication and fragmentation. Governments need to develop instruments and methodologies to focalize communities and vulnerable citizens.

      Community-based organizations are key to make this happen!

      1. One of my focused efforts is called Youth Vocational Training. The Millennium Development Goals contains Basic Education for All. That is a good start, but marketable skills are needed after you learn how to read,, write and do a little math. We need skilled craftsmen and women who can do plumbing and electrical installation as well as specialist on pumps and solar, drip irritation and more. These can be good paying jobs and support sustainable development projects.

        1. That’s right; SDG Goals 4.3 and 4.4 point to equal access to quality vocational training that develops the competencies that are needed to access decent jobs and entrepreneurship. It would be important for Partner countries to include these goals in their country results frameworks, and then work with donors so they can align to these country results frameworks. Any thoughts on how to do this?

    1. ¡Sería muy importante focalizar más cooperación en las familias y en la niñez, que en tanto documento que se produce y que luego muy pocas personas leen!

      1. Querida Lidia: Gracias por su contacto. Las Familias y los Niños merecen leer y escribir (se evita los gritos corruptos políticos), principalmente hoy merecen conocer la A/RES/70/1 – ODS. Ya que tan solo quedan 14 años de resiliencia contra el cambio climático. (Y no estamos haciendo lo correcto) Surge el proyecto para que las familias y los niños tengan un lugar seguro, “su propio espacio” y puedan conocer los ODS y comenzar a disfrutarlos. El tiempo pasa y la inversión no aparece. Si aparece el calentamiento global y todos los hechos de violencia que conocemos. Y los niños se mueren, total a nadie les importa. En conclusión el proyecto pueden tomarlo como base para ser ajustado por persona país, recordando los elementos principales, Familias, Niños, ONU, CPI, su propia orgenización, y hablar de asuntos importantes, agua, alimentos, energía, transporte, comunicaciones.
        El cambio climático y el calentamiento global me dejó sin dormir.
        UN abrazo cálido, siempre.

        1. Es una excelente reflexión y un valioso punto de vista que nos aportas, Santiago. Debemos sensibilizar a la ciudadanía-principalmente a la clase política, pues ellos toman decisiones sobre políticas de inclusión y ademas, manejan los presupuestos nacionales.

  9. Waoooh,what a timely intervention will be delighted to contribute towards Nairobi Outcome document.@EaccNet

  10. Our team with a HQ in Nigeria for regional actions have organized a consortium called the Regional Sustainable Energy Center of Excellence (RSECE). It is fostered by the plan of the World Energy Council (WEC) http://www.worldenergy.org and contains government, university, non profit and for profit entities. Programs and projects are developed to support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) We believe that both Energy and Water developments are key factors in successful development that directly and indirectly support the SDG.

    We have a forward vision and believe that migration from coastal area and small island states will be needing our collaborative efforts. Effective Cooperation as the topic for this forum is very important. The adaptation to the effects of Global Warming and the increase in ocean elevation is
    of great interest. We believe that new desalination projects are needed now and new development of urban areas inland ought to begin now. People will need new homes and the utilities in the distributed generation is ideal in many cases. Considering Youth Vocational Training for the vast
    construction jobs is important for the population as is the various services needed, but away from coastal or land that is only just above the sea level today.

    We independently developed a concept to take water from the Red Sea to send to inland areas for new agriculture and urban areas. The Red – Dead project that the World Bank has found to be feasible is one such example already with some study done. Consider more cooperation as Human Beings with compassion having a high motive position among us all. The Israel and Palestine area can cooperate and get electrical power enhancement and water development that lowers the sea level in this project and others that follows the model. It would only help many factors and development inland that could accommodate the migrants from the coastal area that will be under water in the future. We have other business plans that would have a return on investment (ROI) that in our model development ought to be embraced by others in many places.

    1. These business models and successful practices should be showcased! Would it be possible for RSECE to set up a stand to share your experience at the Nairobi HLM2 meeting?

  11. Four years has passed since Kenya adapted new constitution and used devolution to enhance citizen participation. There has been mixed results, some counties are doing quite well while other are poorly performing. Individual governors efforts and good will shaped out come of development efforts. There is significant lack of contribution by development practitioners to shape business of devolved units. Contribution by practitioners could have shaped process of genuine public participation. Mechanical involvement to meet constitutional requirement has failed to capture the needs and aspiration of common citizens who are mostly left behind. Most of development activities in counties address egos of leaders. For example, while providing street light along high improves security and enhances visibility it may not be a priority for majority who hardly access one meal which meet their nutritional needs and it has been implemented in all counties.
    When genuine participation of citizen is achieved county projects will reflect or responds to needs of the community. Development practitioners can develop framework of pubic involvement to give audience to citizens. In addition, as democracy is not about being spectators the framework should have features of civic education to improve citizens capacity to appreciate their roles.
    Involvement, participation, ownership this are all terms which are relative and can be used conveniently by individual and institutions. To avoid semantic trap it is important to develop a shared understanding among practitioners terms which are coined to enhancing citizen participation and betterment of communities. For example, there should be a standard
    measure of assessing whether participation is genuine.

    1. This this is a good point you flag and this reflection is a great contribution for this discussion: yes, our countries need to raise standards and develop muscle to facilitate genuine participation.

      I have taken this phrase of yours for my personal reflection: involvement, participation and ownership are all relative terms that may be used conveniently by individuals and institutions and may hinder genuine participation.

      As you have very well highlighted, mechanical involvement to meet constitutional requirements has failed to capture the voices of most citizens-and these are the voices that matter the most!

      How can we advance in this?

      And, this may even be the outstanding issue in many other aspects of development cooperation: conditions and recommended criteria may be met by governments mechanically, just to meet constitutional requirements, and substance may be lacking. For example, this may be the case for transparency and accountability.

  12. In the post technology development spectrum we have made possible the communications and transportation across continents a real,reality.We no more need a tele transport system,because virtually we can be on site.
    By Developing more communication and banking systems we will be heading to a new generations where nations and societies cannot think of owning the technology,or transfer technology for their national use.
    Each one of the societies will have a good system in each one of the fields of communication,farming,climate change,industrial production etc.Hence a giant co-operative systems are needed at the global level which shall not be capitalized either by one country or by a company.
    We are definitely in to new developments which will surprise the nations and many corporations,in terms of transport,finances,and micro towers for communications.Let us see the out come of this meeting in that context.

    1. This is an incredibly interesting context you are describing!

      I would really like to see nations and societies thinking as global actors, having evolved from owning technology for their national use to becoming active members of global co-operative systems.

      What I am thinking is that global vocation-nor regional vocation, neither-is something one is born with. A Regional or global vocation is a capacity one develops through experience, when finally one understands that challenges and issues are shared among nations and one is aware that disasters, diseases and problems are not restricted by geographical boundaries.

      How can we develop more global and regional vocation?

  13. Greetings everyone!

    It is indeed a pleasure to join this forum. On my first interaction in this dialogue, there is a pressing issue that I think needs to be further examined to avoid conflict in thinking about the future of development assistance. For instance, the last 15 years of development cooperation have shown that economic, social and political development are part of complex adaptive systems thus requiring development agencies and NGOs to work in tandem to identify capacity gaps to enhance innovation and bring improvements in socio-economic realities. So, at this juncture, I believe that for all development actors, there are two perspectives that we need to take into account here: one between the creation of new institutions to support mutual accountability and context-specific interventions, and another between policy choices and goal-based formulations of programming and resource allocations. With this line of inquiry, the idea would be to ask ourselves how well context-specific interventions integrate with goal-based programming to rethink methodological approaches in budget allocations in order to increase efficiency, and ultimately align the capacity of governments to attain development targets.

    1. Dear Emmanuel: you have put forth a key topic. We must discuss how Country-Results Frameworks may help countries align government plans and budgets. The problem is that many times, national government plans and their indicators are somewhat divorced from the budgeting exercise, because two different government institutions are responsible for that and may not necessarily work together.

      How can Governments align planning and budgeting? Suggestions will be highly appreciated!

      1. Dear Lidia,

        Many thanks for this reply especially for the interesting points that you brought. Yes indeed, this issue of alignment, particularly related to Country-Results Framework, planning and budgeting at country level is very challenging. In this constantly changing development environment, I believe that this perspective should be assembled in a comprehensive format telling us about differences between organizational effectiveness and measures of efficiency.

        In other words, there should be an examination of policy considering how to refine the measurement, management and reporting of results in order to get a clearer view of what works. Let me cite an illustrative example to make this case. I’m going to refer to the participatory budgeting approach that was applied in Porto Alegre, Brazil. To start with, in this framework, the emphasis was put on the integration of discussions and negotiations to streamline budget allocations made by municipalities across poor neighborhood. What stands out is that participatory budgeting was based on a progressive distribution of resources, thus allowing stakeholders to come up with realistic assessment of results connecting institutions to ensure that assistance mechanisms would provide the best value poverty reduction programs. That means that programs and budgeting were framed to strengthen operational effectiveness and organizational efficiency according to interdependent assessments (locally-based) that determined investment criteria and priorities.

        1. Dear Emmanuel:

          Your recommendation to examine policy to refine the measurement, management and reporting of results is very valuable as well as urgent. Your illustrative example on a participatory budget approach carried out in Porto Alegre, Brazil sounds super interesting: could you share a link where we can all get to know more about this experience?

          Thank you!

          1. Hello Lidia and all,

            I’m sharing the following case studies re PB in Porto Alegre to the forum:

            – Participidia – Participatory Budgeting: Porto Alegre. http://participedia.net/en/cases/participatory-budgeting-porto-alegre

            – Celina Souza (2001) Participatory budgeting in Brazilian cities: limits and possibilities in building democratic institutions.
            http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpuprojects/drivers_urb_change/urb_governance/pdf_part_budg/IIED_Souza_Budgeting_Brazil.pdf

            – Inter American Development Bank – Assessment of Partcipatory Budgeting in Brazil. https://www.mef.gob.pe/contenidos/pol_econ/documentos/Presupuesto_Participativo_Brasil_Efectos.pdf

            – Wood and Murray (2007) Participatory Democracy in Brazil and Local Geographies: Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte Compared.
            http://www.cedla.uva.nl/50_publications/pdf/revista/83RevistaEuropea/83-Wood&Murray-ISSN-0924-0608.pdf

          2. Hello Lidia and all,

            I’m sharing the following case studies re PB in Porto Alegre to the forum:

            – Participidia – Participatory Budgeting: Porto Alegre. Here
            http://participedia.net/en/cases/participatory-budgeting-porto-alegre

            – Celina Souza (2001) Participatory budgeting in Brazilian cities: limits and possibilities in building democratic institutions. Here
            http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/drivers_urb_change/urb_governance/pdf_part_budg/IIED_Souza_Budgeting_Brazil.pdf

            – Inter American Development Bank – Assessment of Partcipatory Budgeting in Brazil. Here
            https://www.mef.gob.pe/contenidos/pol_econ/documentos/Presupuesto_Participativo_Brasil_Efectos.pdf

            – Wood and Murray (2007) Participatory Democracy in Brazil and Local Geographies: Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte Compared. Here
            http://www.cedla.uva.nl/50_publications/pdf/revista/83RevistaEuropea/83-Wood&Murray-ISSN-0924-0608.pdf

          3. Dear Emmanuel: Thank you so much for sharing the case study of the participatory budget approach carried out in Porto Alegre, Brazil; I am sure many members of our forum will look into this interesting experience.

  14. The challenge of achieving sustainable development has long been solved. But not in the form of the three components of the economy, ecology and society from the RIO 1992, and in the form of a basin sustainable development Professor Vladimir Lagutov. It remains only to accept the new rules of the game in the form of basin environmental legislation. Today it is the only way to save the planet

    1. It would definitely make a difference if groups of countries come together to develop and test universal environmental basin legislation based on the concept of sustainable basin development.

      How can we promote this kind of thinking among different development actors?

      1. Дорогая Лидия!

        Все зависит от желания и упорства в достижении поставленной цели. Я иду к ней уже лет тридцать. Попутно пришлось написать несколько диссертаций по разным наукам и сделать два новых научных направления. Первое – создание экологически чистой гидротехники для реконструкции путей миграций далеко мигрирующих видов рыб на реках с плотинами. Второе – необходимые социальные меры по обеспечению первого. Это называется бассейновой концепцией устойчивого развития, т.е. новое экологическое бассейновое законодательство. И это последний шанс для спасения планеты.
        Что сделать для построения в итоге зеленого Глобального управления?
        1. Ознакомить общество, что выход есть и он вполне реален. Достаточно в каждой экосистеме реки сохранить биоразнообразие. Все эти годы я только и просвещаю общество на всех доступных конференциях и форумах.
        2. Практически достиг уже предела. На двух семинарах фонда GEF в Минске (2015) и Астане (2016) мне удалось убедить их, что сам фонд GEF должен быть реформирован по бассейнам.
        3. Еще в начале 1990-х годов все было готово к социальному эксперименту на реке Дон в виде Донского осетрового парка. Но военный переворот 1993 года в РФ похоронил все надежды на четверть века. Теперь это задача для модельного проекта уже для ООН. В 2007 году в Оренбурге на реке Урал, и 2010 году в Ростове на реке Дон были собраны ведущие специалисты ООН в охране природы и им понравилась эта идея.
        4. И главное – разработка и принятие общего экологического бассейнового законодательства для всего мира под эгидой ООН. Обязательного для исполнения всеми странами.

        Как это сделать, пункты 3 и 4, это и есть задача для обсуждения. Проблема освещена несколькими сотнями моих публикаций на моей страничке на сайте Proza.ru Владимир Лагутов.

        Надеюсь ответил на Ваш вопрос, если что непонятно, то рад буду ответить. Проблема устойчивого развития решена уже четверть века назад, еще до самой Программы ООН.

        2016-10-17 8:19 GMT+04:00 Disqus :

  15. Governments around the world, in both developing and developed countries, are going through tremendous changes to respond to rapidly rising expectations of their citizens for improved public service delivery – something that is vitally important for achieving the SDGs. In particular, the following trends are observed:

    1. New digital technologies provide governments with the means to improve the delivery of public services, thereby bringing increased accountability, transparency and effectiveness leading to greater public trust.

    However, the challenge is often with developing citizen-centered rather than technology-centered approaches and the adoption and promotion of digitization by the service providers themselves.

    2. To fully understand the perspective of the citizen, especially the underserved, and modify their own structures and processes to incorporate this new understanding, many governments are employing tools such as ‘design thinking’ and ‘behavioral insights’.

    However, sometimes these tools are quite difficult to adopt and adapt to the needs of a particular country and its unique context.

    3. Typically, civil service is designed to be risk-averse in order to maintain order and the status quo. Yet, many governments are dabbling in various experiments, at times partnering with NGOs, for-profit companies and academia, to improve public services and their delivery systems. Numerous ‘innovation labs’ have sprouted around the world and produced fascinating innovations and evidence that have the potential to help inform policy formulations.

    However, the proportion of these innovations that have been scaled-up geographically/demographically is much lower than expectation.

    These 3 trends; digitization of service delivery, user-centered innovation methodologies, and experimentation both within and by civil service are establishing a culture of citizen-centric innovation within the practicing governments, breaking operational and functional silos.

    However, achievements vary considerably across countries, some falling far below expectations. Important reasons include replication without proper understanding of the context and lack of commensurate efforts in human and institutional capacity development. These result in wastage of scarce resources and frustration among policy makers, service providers and seekers alike.

    There is thus, a tremendous need for a collaborative ‘South-South and Triangular Cooperation Network for Scaling Innovations in Public Service Delivery’. A collaborative network such as this could identify innovative practices on making governments and civil services more effective, transparent, accountable and citizen-centered and proliferating these practices globally.

    Countries from the South are well-positioned to understand each other’s development realities; particularly, what works and what doesn’t, and perhaps most importantly, the whys behind the successes and failures. They also recognize the need to experiment on their own turfs and avoid mistakes made by similar countries. The expectation therefore is that countries facing common thematic challenges and seeking to achieve similar strategic development goals can make faster progress through shared learning and experiences.

    Countries need to come together and explore questions such as:

    – What kind of innovations in governments are meeting citizens’ expectations of improved public service delivery?
    – What creates impact and what doesn’t in such innovations?
    – Why do certain public service innovations scale while others don’t?
    – How much experimentation is pragmatic in the public service delivery sphere?

    The network could provide a much needed platform that enables that interaction and exchange, hopefully leading to answers in specific terms such that countries are empowered to take action towards adoption of innovative practices after customizing them to the local context.

    It would be really great if we could a chapter or even a section dedicated to this issue in the Nairobi Outcome Document.

    Many thanks for organizing this! All the best!

    1. Dear Ishtiaque: I love your idea of a South-South and Triangular Cooperation Network for Scaling Innovations in Public Service Delivery!

      What I have experienced is that regional platforms-such as Mesoamerica Integration and Development mechanism in my region-are already implementing South-South Cooperation networks to share lessons learned for more efficient public service delivery.

      It would certainly be great if different regional platforms could come together and organize themselves in this kind of network, which would in turn, be inter-regional.

      One important question to tackle is if development providers would support this new kind of inter-regional partnerships….

      Are Governments and public sector servants ready for this kind of alliance and partnership?

  16. О незыблемости базовых понятий экологии

    Владимир Лагутов

    Надо бы определиться по самим основным понятиям:

    Что такое есть ныне природа?

    В разумении МПР и им подобных это есть окружающая среда, т.е. предельно

    изувеченная человеком природа. Или ее остатки в разной степени антропогенного разрушения.

    Что такое термин экология?

    Опять таки в понятиях МПР и ему подобных чиновников это сама природа.
    Вряд ли можно согласиться с названием науки по изучению самого объекта
    для его названия. Типичные заблуждения: экология души, экология банка,
    экология подъезда…

    Что такое потепление, похолодание или изменение климата?

    Применение всех этих терминов людьми свидетельствует о безграмотности
    эти слова произносящих, так как климат не есть объект, а процесс, все
    время изменяемый во времени. Потому эти словосочетания явно не
    соответствуют смыслу сказанного.

    Исходя из сказанного, применение термина плохая или хорошая экология
    равносильно похолоданию или потеплению климата, категориям явно
    бессмысленным, как и изменение климата – масло масляное. Сам процесс
    климат существует только по наличию его главных составляющих его
    воздействия, а именно биоразнообразию и человеку.

    Что такое устойчивое развитие?

    Обычно малограмотные люди используют это словосочетание для всего им
    желаемого, например устойчивое развитие экономики, которое всегда

    заканчивается кризисом, или устойчивое развитие города, под которым
    понимают безграничное увеличение численности людей, домов, занимаемой
    площади и т.п. компонентов.

    Нельзя и сказать, что это присуще только малограмотным людям, так вся
    научная рать ООН в течение 20 лет, с момента принятия в Рио де Жанейро
    этой концепции устойчивого развития, вела человечество к погибели, так
    как умудрилась запихнуть в эту концепцию из трех её составляющих еще и
    экономику как главную доминанту над обществом и природой. Естественно,
    что данная концепция по обслуживанию интересов “экономистов” оказалась
    нежитью.

    Но если этот, по существу своему, инструмент изъять, то останется два
    главных элемента определяющих жизнь нашей планеты, а именно природа и
    уничтожающее ее, на ней паразитирующее общество. И от мирного
    сосуществования этих двух элементов в Земном мире и зависит возможность

    самой жизни на планете. На этой аксиоме и построена концепция
    бассейнового устойчивого развития, как единственного пути человечества в
    будущее.

    И иного базового шанса на спасение у человечества нет…

  17. Бассейновая концепция Устойчивого Развития -спасение биоразнообразия

    Владимир Лагутов https://www.proza.ru/2010/04/29/1456

    Бассейновая концепция устойчивого развития как основа сохранения

    биоразнообразия и глобального управления.

    Химера устойчивого развития ООН на основе трех компонентной цели –

    экономика, экология, социум, рухнула к Форуму РИО+10. Вместо нее в

    качестве генеральной линии международного сообщества была принята

    бассейновая концепция устойчивого развития построенная на двух

    равновеликих факторах: природе и социуме.

    В классическом представлении достижение устойчивого развития есть

    сосуществование общества и природы при не уходящих видах разнообразия.

    Для достижения стационарности этого временного критерия сохранности

    видов требуется решение чисто бассейновой задачи, а именно сохранения

    в качестве универсальных биоиндикаторов состояния здоровья любой

    экосистемы рек и моря самых долгоживущих, наименее пластичных, далеко

    мигрирующих видов, например осетровых рыб. Для их сохранности

    требуется совместное экологическое законодательство по защите ООПТ на

    всю длину пути их миграций в ареале распространения по всему

    жизненному циклу, а также участия населения в защите особого режима

    природопользования в поймах рек в линии разлива 1% водообеспеченности.

    На базе такого модельного решения для каждого бассейна рек строится

    система управления и ограничений для всего сообщества, а также система

    Мирового Правительства без национальной государственной надстройки,

    что и позволяет уже в настоящее время перейти к системе нового

    мирового порядка для сохранения жизни на земле и ее природы.

  18. Easterly has declared that in 2006, 103.6 billion dollars for development cooperation flowed to Partner Countries (2006, p.4). Reports show that in the past 50 years, over $ 2.3 trillion dollars have been mobilized.

    Nonetheless, Analysts have expressed that when this large amount of resources is compared to the achievements that have been obtained, results may look disappointing.

    The stated purpose of development cooperation is to promote economic and human development, but its capacity to achieve this purpose is being questioned more and more each day.

    Is it urgent to make development cooperation more effective? I definitely think it is an urgent task.

    How can Development cooperation be more effective?

    Who is responsible for this?

    These are just a couple of questions we must keep in mind to help shape and share our answers in this online discussion.

    May this coming week be full of success and we’ll-being for all.

  19. Some authors, such as Bauer (2000) and Easterly (2001) have stated that despite the time and resources devoted to development cooperation, it seems to be uneffective and that it may even have a negative impact in developing countries.

    Other works (Williamson, 2008 and Powell & Ryan, 2006) indicate that development cooperation does not show effects on growth nor on any poverty indicator.

    Is this so?

    If it is: what can we do to improve it effectiveness?

  20. Дорогая Лидия!

    Все зависит от желания и упорства в достижении
    поставленной цели. Я иду к ней уже лет тридцать. Попутно пришлось
    написать несколько диссертаций по разным наукам и сделать два новых
    научных направления. Первое – создание экологически чистой гидротехники
    для реконструкции путей миграций далеко мигрирующих видов рыб на реках с
    плотинами. Второе – необходимые социальные меры по обеспечению первого.
    Это называется бассейновой концепцией устойчивого развития, т.е. новое
    экологическое бассейновое законодательство. И это последний шанс для
    спасения планеты.
    Что сделать для построения в итоге зеленого Глобального управления?
    1.
    Ознакомить общество, что выход есть и он вполне реален. Достаточно в
    каждой экосистеме реки сохранить биоразнообразие. Все эти годы я только и
    просвещаю общество на всех доступных конференциях и форумах.
    2.
    Практически достиг уже предела. На двух семинарах фонда GEF в Минске
    (2015) и Астане (2016) мне удалось убедить их, что сам фонд GEF должен
    быть реформирован по бассейнам.
    3. Еще в начале 1990-х годов все было
    готово к социальному эксперименту на реке Дон в виде Донского
    осетрового парка. Но военный переворот 1993 года в РФ похоронил все
    надежды на четверть века. Теперь это задача для модельного проекта уже
    для ООН. В 2007 году в Оренбурге на реке Урал, и 2010 году в Ростове на
    реке Дон были собраны ведущие специалисты ООН в охране природы и им
    понравилась эта идея.
    4. И главное – разработка и принятие общего
    экологического бассейнового законодательства для всего мира под эгидой
    ООН. Обязательного для исполнения всеми странами.

    Как это
    сделать, пункты 3 и 4, это и есть задача для обсуждения. Проблема
    освещена несколькими сотнями моих публикаций на моей страничке на сайте
    Proza.ru Владимир Лагутов.

    Надеюсь ответил на Ваш вопрос, если
    что непонятно, то рад буду ответить. Проблема устойчивого развития
    решена уже четверть века назад, еще до самой Программы ООН.

  21. Bonsoir à tous,
    C’est un réel plaisir pour moi de joindre ce forum. En ce qui concerne la coopération au développement entre 2012 – 2016,
    1. les améliorations ont été effectuées dans les domaines suivants:
    – Les OSC ont joué un grand rôle en matière de plaidoyer, lobby ce qui a contribué à l’octroi d’Espace et Influence des OSC dans les prises de décision au niveau national et Régional
    – Intervention des OSC dans la posture de gardien de la veille citoyenne ayant pour but de tenir redevable les dirigeants et acteurs politiques pour l’accomplissement de leurs missions (assurer un développent durable axé sur la bonne gouvernance, la transparence, la justice et le respect des constitutions étatiques)
    – Préservation de la paix et la garantie d’un espace de libre échange entre les décideurs, acteurs politiques et membres de la société civile
    – Présence numérique des OSC (Campagne, Actions de Plaidoyer, e-training, etc..) qui a beaucoup contribué à informer la population et à prendre les actions pour le respect des droits du peuple et la garantie de leurs sécurités

  22. Parlant d’impact direct et à la base, la coopération au développent n’a pas vraiment marchée à cause de la corruption, la mauvaise gouvernance et le non respect des textes.
    Ce que je proposerais est que les partenaires financiers revoient leurs critères d’octroi de fonds vers les pays en voie de développement et qu’ils financent des initiatives réelles pouvant apporter un changement sur la vie de ceux qui sont à la base pour une réelle éradication de la pauvreté.
    Pour améliorer l’efficacité à la coopération au développement dans les pays en voie de développement:
    – il est important d’installer des Comité Pays différents de Régionaux qui auront un mandat pour suivre de près les gouvernements et les structures ayant bénéficié de financement afin de les tenir redevables et que les actions aillent véritablement jusqu’à la base pour éviter qu’on présente à la fin un Rapport d’activités fictif.

  23. Estimados Sres:

    Participación discusión en línea:

    > Para ello me remito a las preguntas guía, las cuales se relacionan estrechamente entre si.

    > 1.- Acciones para mejorar la eficacia de la Cooperación al desarrollo.
    > La Política de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (PCID) de nuestro país,la cual está sustentada en los principios de la Alianza Global para la Cooperación Eficaz al Desarrollo, es el principal instrumento con que contamos para lograr la eficacia de la AOD en la República Dominicana.
    > Cada acción a ejecutarse al implementar este instrumento, vista desde la óptica de cómo hacerla más eficaz y eficiente nos va a introducir a una cultura de efectividad para el mediano y largo plazo.
    Si conocemos que como país de renta media, los flujos de la AOD serán cada vez más exiguos, como lograr que su aprovechamiento sea máximo? Como lograr aquí la máxima efectividad? La adopción y el cumplimiento de los Principios de la Efectividad de la AOD (Paris, Accra, Busan, México) y la sinergia que se puede dar entre ellos nos va a conducir a esa cultura de efectividad. Una acción concreta a realizar en el corto plazo que redundará en beneficio para crear esa cultura de efectividad es la construcción del sistema de seguimiento que registre el cumplimiento de los indicadores de la Alianza Global de forma permanente.
    > 2.- Como se puede no dejar a nadie de lado o fuera?
    > Nos remitimos de nuevo a la PCID y a la “Asociación de Busan para una eficaz cooperación para el desarrollo” (declaración de Busan).
    > Este enunciado de que nadie se quede fuera tiene dos vertientes. Por un lado podemos referirnos a las Políticas de inclusión social plasmadas en la Estrategia Nacional de Desarrollo (END), las cuales tienen que ser más efectivas, la inequidad de nuestro modelo económico tiene que subsanarse.
    > Por otra parte, ese que “no se quede nadie fuera o de lado” (Busan 2011), implica que la participación de los diferentes actores del desarrollo sea cada vez más activa, más inclusiva. Es darles una mayor participación a cada uno de ellos desde su ámbito de acción: Sector Privado, Sociedad Civil (Academia, Sindicatos, ONG’s), Proveedores, Gobierno y sus diferentes estamentos: Gobierno Central e instituciones autónomas y descentralizadas; Gobiernos Subnacionales, Parlamento etc. Que la interacción y el diálogo constructivo sea cada vez mayor. Qué no se quede en el mero diálogo, sino que esa participación se traduzca en acciones concretas.

    > 3.- Maximizar la contribución de los profesionales del desarrollo significa que al darle participación a todos ellos para, “que nadie se quede fuera”, cada quién aportará desde su perspectiva y calificación y serán aprovechadas las capacidades de cada cual.
    Atentos saludos,

    Teonilde López

    1. My dear Teonilde! I know the Dominican Republic has advanced greatly, and I am a witness of the strong commitment there is to improve development effectiveness. Kudos for that!

      Your reflections are thorough, and I wish to take one of your phrases literally:
      La adopción y el cumplimiento de los Principios de la Efectividad de la AOD (Paris, Accra, Busan, México) y la sinergia que se puede dar entre ellos nos va a conducir a esa cultura de efectividad”- You have stated that the adoption and implementation of the Paris Effectiveness Principles and the synergies between them will steer us into a culture of effectiveness. I like this statement! I like it because I truly believe this is so. The Paris principles are still valid, and it is important to keep them in our radar and implement them in our daily business.

      I want to refer to another powerful thought of yours: “Una acción concreta a realizar en el corto plazo que redundará en beneficio para crear esa cultura de efectividad es la construcción del sistema de seguimiento que registre el cumplimiento de los indicadores de la Alianza Global de forma permanente”. This translates like this: a concrete, short-term action to carry out that will benefit this culture for effectiveness is the monitoring system which will register the achievement of the GPEDC indicators in a permanent way.

      Yes! The monitoring system is a MUST. But the monitoring system and the surveys on their own can not change anything unless there is open and frank dialogue between the different actors. We do NOTHING if results are pushed and covered up under the rug…how can we discuss challenges frankly and openly?

  24. Dear Lidia,

    So nice to see you leading this process. Hopefully the thinking will go beyond the traditional and that this will be an opportunity to innovate, break the silos and make this a real global partnership.

    1) I think that what is being less discussed and that has more impact are the flows of Private Development Cooperation. As you know these flows challenge the narrow definition of country ownership …where the definition should also direct aid to NGOs without having to be channeled through government’s account. Private Development Cooperation can help fill the gap in financing development …and there is an opportunity for such funds to complement government (public efforts) when and if appropriate. As you know the concept of national strategies is often tainted by political flavors.

    2) The world of finance is changing exponentially while ODA (traditional aid) is still focusing on old methods to finance development. Blended Finance is being held as a promising new ecosystem to finance development. Unfortunately, there are no platform that truly makes Blended Finance work …maybe this is something that this something that may come to light after the Nairobi event.

    3) It seems like this subject is not on the table but one of the most pressing challenges that is changing the way cooperation is taking place (or not) is …the work of the Financial Action Task Force is leading. Banks/Financial Institutions/ and developing country government are making more difficult for NGOs/CSOs to receive funding from international private donors. I believe Kenya is one of those countries who are targeting NGOs. India took the lead on this and many other countries are doing the same in order to receive a good report from the FATF.

    A few weeks ago we (Impact 2030) held our first Summit at the UN where the private sector is making a commitment towards the implementation of the SDGS. The engagement of employees (human capital) through activities such as volunteering, probono, technical assistance, capacity building, and crowdsourcing is mobilizing individuals in support of development. It’s becoming even more crucial to include such activities – money alone will never be able to address the needs and opportunities in developing countries.

    While the interest (for the moment) rest with large foundations, I think it’s important to note that organizations like InterAction in Washington DC mobilize more than 80% of their funding ($18 billion annually) from the $5, $10, $25 donations.

    The solutions lies in strategic and sustainable hypercollective actions!

    One again …happy to see you leading this discussion and hopefully some of the silos will eventually be broken to include a more diverse group of organizations with new and innovate solutions that go beyond the unique principal that “country ownership” = government alone.

    1. Dear Luc: how wonderful to find your comments in our online discussion! Thank you so much for your valuable thoughts. I totally agree with you; the world of finance is transforming full-speed and the only certainty we have is change. I want to highlight your reflection, because it pokes the finger in a sensible spot: development cooperation is still being implemented with old methods, while our everyday world is dramatically changing. Now…how can this situation be solved?

      In an SDG context, besides the strategic and sustainable hypercollective actions that you highlight, can more international private providers transfer funding to NGOs? Is Theory of Change one possible solution?

      1. Dear Lidia — thank you for the prompt reply. The Theory of Change is interesting as I also teach this in my classes for Blended Finance. Not sure that this is something that can come out of the event in Kenya …unless it’s part of an action plan that will focus purely on actionable innovative ideas. Always interesting to walk students through the series of HLM …and discuss the fact that the definition of country ownership is still limited to “government” – it’s still the base even though most would agree that private flows of aid are more agile …and connected to the local reality.

        …but the new problem resides in making these small transactions more effective, less costly, mutual, transparent – lots of great efforts are happening but they are disconnected. Next week …we will present the model to students in financial engineering and build the model using new financial technology.

        I think that LATAM can be example …the perfect pilot test. Lots of opportunities to go from Bleeding Finance to Blended Finance and Hypercollective Actions. Hopefully we will be able to connect Central America as part of this ambitious but feasible initiative.

        Looking forward to virtually follow the event in Kenya and to receive information about the results.

        1. Dear Luc:
          It is great to have your viewpoints via this online consultation! Let me share with you that a little more than a year ago, the GPEDC Co-Chairs established a Monitoring Advisory Group (MAG) to provide observations and advise on the relevance of the Monitoring Framework and propose Theory of Change (ToC).

          Being part of this Group was a fantastic experience for me, because the deliberations were incredibly interesting and although we all came from different regions and countries, we were able to integrate as a team. We identified a proposal derived from (1) the Busan and Mexico Outcome Documents, (2) from implementation experiences and (3) Steering Committee discussions. Our MAG Chair presented the ToC proposal to the Steering Committee.

          The proposal is titled “The GPEDC Theory of Change: an exposition and critique” and it is available for the public and stakeholders in this website-effectivecooperation.org.

    1. I was a Finance Major in college. I developed an opinion that nothing gets done without the finance in place Equity or Debt are the general pathways, other than gifts or donations. I have developed an opinion that Profit is not a four letter word. It is necessary for a business to exist after costs to include taxes are covered. Profit is an incentive. The profit can be used to grow a business, that is better than just existing or sustained. Investors normally seek a Return On Investment (ROI) as an incentive to invest, but a business may make a profit and have Retained Earnings for self induced growth actions.

      The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is interesting to many concerned with development. It could have an incentive added by lower tax or the gained Good Will with such efforts in a Global Partnering with other nations and actors such as local indigenous people. We are seeking finance for projects that are projected to do better than break even. The profit can be used to expand in various ways, such as repeating the project or developing Youth with Vocational Training that has other tangible and intangible benefits that ought to evolve from the Millennium Development Goal of Basic Education for All. It would give marketable skills and help with development action.

      1. Wow! That is a great proposal for a strong incentive that is win-win for all parts. I would just like to flag that this proposal requires tax-collecting ministries to think out of the box….I have seen, in many countries, that these institutions just focus on meeting their target for tax-collecting. They tend to omit any other mechanism with tangible or intangible benefits. How can their mind-sets be provoked and changed?

        1. The UN announced a new partnership financing program for the SDGs. The United Nations chief, Ban Ki-moon, said that the proposed multi-stakeholder Financial Innovation Platform would support the identification and piloting of innovative finance instruments, and would engage key development actors, including Governments, civil society, philanthropic organizations, entrepreneurs, institutional investors, banks, project developers and development finance institutions.
          http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/documents/InnovativeFinForDev.pdf

    2. Incentives are a great idea but somehow even when organizations understand that there is a mutual benefit to collaborate ….and that they could save money (hence making aid more effective) they still do not act on the opportunity nor collaborate. One of the idea being tossed around is gradual incentives. Discussions at a recent event at the World Bank (From Billions to Trillions) showed interest by the private sector but all pointed to the lack of infrastructures to connect investment with needs and opportunities. Incentives …or behavioral economics!

  25. Thanks Lidia for Great Facilitation and Thanks to Colleagues that have contributed thus far especially Teonilde and Luc. First Language. Teonilde has made Great Points in Spanish. Could a way be found for simultaneous translation in the 6 UN Official Languages? English is the Dominant Global Language that shut out many Great Global Consultation Contributions in the remaining 5 languages – Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish and Russian. I see some contributions in other languages that may be outside the 6 Official Languages, If this is the case, again this needs to be addressed and standardized to the 6 UN Official Languages.

    Secondly, the 3 discussion questions are What questions. What and Why questions in World Sustainable Development Processes have been over answered while When, Where, Who and How, especially DOING of How questions have been avoided or evaded. This explains why AAAA, SDG, COP21 are essentially Vision and Words without Action and why fundamental issues of Implementation and Evaluation that ought to have been settled at least 6 months before SDGs’ were Endorsed by World Leaders in September 2015 are still outstanding 13 months after SDGs were Endorsed and unless Corrective Measures are taken some of these issues could remain outstanding even by the 2030 Target date, hence urgent need to ensure AAAA, SDG, COP21 and Agenda 21 Processes are Motion with Meaning.

    Thirdly, Lessons are yet to be Learnt from Flaws and Failures in the Implementation and Evaluation of Paris Agreement 2005 and Accra Agenda 2007. As long as Lessons are not Learnt from Mistakes of history, Mistakes of history will continue to be made. Therefore if Implementation and Evaluation of Busan Declaration 2011 is to succeed on sustainable basis where Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda failed, Community to Global Stakeholders need to genuinely commit to building bridge between Lessons Learning and Lessons Forgetting.

    Fourthly, clear and correct answers to the root problems facing each of the 193/306 UN Member States today could be found in New National and International Development Cooperation Vision and New National and International Security Vision: Community to Global Stakeholders jointly making paradigm shifts from working in silos to working in synergy; from multiple approaches many of which are divergent to One Worldwide Approach that continuously improve convergence, alignment and harmony; from business as usual to business unusual; from parotting change to practicing change; from academic research aimed at advancing frontiers of knowledge to development research aimed at significant improvement in critical contemporary measures of service, speed, costs, quality and where necessary revenue; from talking and thinking to Action and Accomplishment etc

    Fifthly, addressing all above points demand Pilot Programs and Scale Up Programs using One Worldwide Approach and in ways that effectively address all Political and Sensitive issues, if HLM2 is to Mark Turning Point in National and World Sustainable development.

    1. Dear Lanre:

      You have shared very highly provoking and important reflections with us!

      1) On Language: I really think you have a strong point in your reflection on the 6 UN Official Languages and the fact that precisely language could have shut out many Great Global Consultation Contributions in the remaining 5 languages – Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish and Russian, and that we may have valuable contributions from practitioners in other languages that may be outside the Official 6. This is key, if we want to be more inclusive!

      2) On Motion with Meaning: I just love this phrase-“Motion with Meaning”! I agree: What and Why questions in Sustainable Development Processes have been over-answered, while When, Where, Who and How-especially the actions and the DOING of How questions-may not have been clearly specified. This seems to be a common situation in many different cases: in Summits, High-Level Fora, and etc. How can this issue be solved?

      3) On Lesson-Learning and Lesson-Forgetting: I am totally with you-if lessons are not Learnt from Mistakes of history, Mistakes of history will continue to be made.

      I can assure you that many, many of us that led Paris Declaration Surveys in our countries did learn valuable and important lessons from Flaws and Failures in the Implementation and Evaluation of Paris Agreement 2005 and Accra Agenda 2007. Some of us may have had the opportunity to flag our experiences and lessons learned-others may have not had the opportunity. I find that high staff rotation and turnover and government changes have been a recurrent issue that weakens the efficient building of knowledge in cooperation effectiveness. This has happened on both sides: on Partner Country Governments and on Development Partner agencies, too. I have taken notice that our CSO colleagues have been more permanent, and this is certainly a value added.

      I emphasize your conclusion on this thought, because of its high relevance for Nairobi: if Implementation and Evaluation of Busan Declaration 2011 is to succeed on a sustainable basis where Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda failed, all Stakeholders need to genuinely commit to building bridges between Lessons Learning and Lessons Forgetting. The important question is: how can these much-needed bridges be built?

      (4) On Evolving from Talking and Thinking to Action and Accomplishments: At the country level, at the regional level, and at the global level, we all need to make these things happen:

      a) jointly making paradigm shifts from working in silos to working in synergy;
      b) from multiple approaches-many of which are divergent-to One Worldwide Approach that continuously improve convergence, alignment and harmony;
      c) from business as usual to business unusual;
      d) from parrotting change to practicing change;
      e) from academic research aimed at advancing frontiers of knowledge to development research aimed at significant improvement in critical contemporary measures of service, speed, costs, quality and where necessary revenue;
      f) from talking and thinking to Action and Accomplishment.

      A platform such as the GPEDc is a global public good that helps all parties engage in dialogue and agree on way-forward actions. The question is: how can Nairobi sessions really become platforms for dialogue?

      (5) Addressing all the above points demand Pilot Programs and Scale Up Programs using One Worldwide Approach and in ways that effectively address all Political and Sensitive issues, if HLM2 is to Mark Turning Point in National and World Sustainable development.

  26. Any suggestions On how to Make Motion with Meaning Happen? Taking Lanre’s comment on overly-answered What and Why questions in Sustainable Development Processes, while When, Where, Who and How questions still have not been answered-especially the actions and the DOING of How questions-can we find recommendations to solve this?

  27. Let’s try to define options or ways to build bridges between Lessons Learning and Lessons Forgetting, because if lessons are not learnt from mistakes of history, mistakes of history will continue to be made.

    Many of us that led Paris Declaration Surveys in our countries did learn valuable and important lessons from Flaws and Failures in Implementing and Evaluating the 2005 Paris Declaration and the 2007 Accra Agenda. Some of us may have had the opportunity to flag our experiences and lessons learned-others may have not had the opportunity. I find that high staff rotation and turnover and government changes have been a recurrent issue that weakens the efficient building of knowledge in cooperation effectiveness. This has happened on both sides: on Partner Country Governments and on Development Partner agencies, too. I have taken notice that our CSO colleagues have been more permanent, and this is certainly a value added in having them as a strong pillar in the GPEDC!

    Now, it is key to highlight that the different Paris Declaration Survey Reports demonstrated that Partner Countries had advanced more on commitments than Development Partners and cooperation agencies. These results were reaffirmed by the Independent Evaluation of the Paris Declaration. How can we determine if this is still the case in the GPEDC Era?

    Here goes a highly relevant thought for Nairobi: if Implementation and Evaluation of Busan Declaration 2011 is to succeed on a sustainable basis where Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda failed, all Stakeholders need to genuinely commit to building bridges between Lessons Learning and Lessons Forgetting. The important question is: how can these much-needed bridges be built?

  28. The world needs a paradigm shift from Talking and Thinking to Action and Accomplishments for Results!

    At the country level, at the regional level, and at the global level, we all need to make these things happen:

    a) jointly making paradigm shifts from working in silos to working intersectorially in synergy;

    b) from multiple approaches to common approaches that continuously improve convergence, alignment and harmony;

    c) from business as usual to business unusual;

    d) from parrotting change to practicing change;

    e) from academic research aimed at advancing frontiers of knowledge to development research aimed at significant improvement in critical contemporary measures of service, speed, costs, quality and where necessary revenue;

    f) from talking and thinking to Action and Accomplishment.

    A platform such as the GPEDc is a Global Public Good that helps all parties engage in dialogue and agree on way-forward actions.

    How can we all take this forward?

    1. Apologies for Cross Posting

      Thanks Moderator Lidia, for comment. 5 years after GPEDC was created, there is need for reinvigorating effort to achieve increasing convergence between GPEDC Vision Intention and Reality.

      It is clear that without minimum certain level of support from 3 Blocks – 193/306 UN Member States; UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF and CSOs/NGOs; the National Collective Action in each UN Member State and Complimentary Global Collective Action cannot be Mobilized and without this Mobilization, Institutionalizing the identified Multiple Paradigm Shifts cannot be done. And without these Action cannot be taken on Interventions within
      http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/mi317e/mi317e.pdf FAO Strategic Objectives
      http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap088e/ap088e00.pdf FAO Cooperatives
      http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2317e.pdf FAO Adapt
      http://www.copac.coop/co-operatives-in-the-spotlight-at-committee-on-world-food-security/ COPAC Initiatives
      http://fmard.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-Nigeria-Agric-Sector-Policy-Roadmap_June-15-2016_Final.pdf Nigeria Agriculture Promotion Policy
      and it is not just HLM2 and other GPEDC Platform Activities but also IMF 2016 ARC, other IMF Platform Activities; WBG Platform Activities; UNO Platform Activities as well as Member States Platform Activities that should be involved in the National and Global Movements and in ways that give Strong Voice to those Stakeholders that genuinely represent the over 2 Billion Poor Worldwide.

      In view of the above, we all should be concerned that IMF 2016 ARC has no Professional who is Black not to talk of from SSA making Presentation. Is it not those who wear the Shoe that know where it hurts? Can the authentic Perspectives of Blacks and SSA in Particular be presented by Non Black and Non SSA Presenters with minimum certain levesl of Competences – Hard Competences: Learning and Skills and Soft Competences: Character, Courage, Discipline and Mindset?

  29. Some hours ago, Emmanuel Asomba shared a case on how to refine the measurement, management and reporting of results: he has provided us some links to showcase the participatory budgeting approach that was applied in Porto Alegre, Brazil. In this experience, emphasis was put on the integration of discussions and negotiations to streamline budget allocations made by municipalities across poor neighborhood-programs and budgeting were framed to strengthen operational effectiveness and organizational efficiency according to interdependent assessments, which were locally-based. Here are the links:

    – Participidia – Participatory Budgeting: Porto Alegre. Here
    http://participedia.net/en/cas

    – Celina Souza (2001) Participatory budgeting in Brazilian cities: limits and possibilities in building democratic institutions. Here
    http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-proje

    – Inter American Development Bank – Assessment of Partcipatory Budgeting in Brazil. Here
    https://www.mef.gob.pe/conteni

    – Wood and Murray (2007) Participatory Democracy in Brazil and Local Geographies: Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte Compared. Here
    http://www.cedla.uva.nl/50_pub

    Our friend Cloustonenergy informed us that the UN announced a new partnership financing program for the SDGs, and that the United Nations chief, Ban Ki-moon, said that the proposed multi-stakeholder Financial Innovation Platform would support the identification and piloting of innovative finance instruments, and would engage key development actors, including Governments, civil society, philanthropic organizations, entrepreneurs, institutional investors, banks, project developers and development finance institutions.

    This is an opportunity to implement Country Results Frameworks, improve the linkages between budgeting and finance and experiment with participatory budgeting!
    http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/docu

  30. Thanks Moderator Lidia for welcoming our Ideas and asking Leading Questions on the Way Forward. Please take a critical look at this Article which provide some of the answers you seek
    http://developmentchangechampions.blogspot.com.ng/2016/10/global-push-to-achieve-sdgs-vision-and.html
    http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/neglected-universal-force-peace-and-stability-love#comment-6229
    http://www.un.org/en/ga/second/70/input_3pcm_long.pdf

    In practical terms ACTION could START from UN System – UNO, WBG, IMF Events in November 2016 ( as well as GPEDC HLM2 if this is not part of UN System Initiative)
    1. IMF 2016 Annual Research Conference 3 – 4 November 2016 includes a Session on Economic Forum that will Discuss Great Recession. Lanre has been given Invitation to the Event but ISPE/EAG has requested for expansion of Panelists to 5 to include Presentation on the answers you seek. You and GPEDC could help persuade IMF to grant the speaking slot and related requests made by ISPE/EAG.
    2. COP22. COP22 News is aware of the above Talking Development Change article. Again COP22 like IMF ARC 2016 could focus on answers to these questions
    3. GPEDC and HLM2 have a bundle of our submission, providing even more details on these answers, especially focusing on practicability of implementation and evaluation. HLM2 Organizers have welcomed our contributions. Also the Kenya Government through the Kenya UN Mission have welcomed our contributions. The Big Issue now, is How do they intend to Move Forward the ideas and suggestions in ways that ensure HLM2 indeed Mark Turning Point in International Development Cooperation as well as World Sustainable Development?

  31. On Incentives – Incentives need to be effectively addressed on 2 fronts – Procurement: Who, Where, What Gets Funded? and HRD: How Management and Staff Assessment is Rewarded or Sanctioned effectively and appropriately. If these issues are not meaningfully addressed, the New SG Bank Ki Moon Partnership Financing for SDG will record flaws and failures like past and ongoing similar initiatives.

    What is the evidence that this New Financing Initiative has learnt lessons from flaws and failures of past and ongoing Financing Initiative? As long as the New Financing Initiative does not respond effectively to all the relevant questions ISPE/EAG has consistently raises, it will sadly be Motion without Movement – ultimately.

    To avoid these flaws and failures, the New Financing Initiative must demonstrate and be seen to demonstrate that the 3 Blocks – UN Member States: Executive, Parliament, Legislature at all levels; UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF Headquarters; Agency Headquarters, Regional Offices and Country Offices and CSOs/NGOs Headquarters, Regional Offices and Country Offices Get It Right on these 2 Fronts. If or When this is Done, AMAZING Transformation from Community to Global levels in each of 193/306 Member States will occur before our very eyes and 2030 Agenda – AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 Visions ambitions will be achieved by 2030 Target date.

    1. Dear Lanre:

      To follow up on your comments on incentives, I have done some personal research on existing case studies and papers on incentives.

      I found an important case study that Claudia R. Williamson published in 2009. The case study’s title is Exploring the Failure of Foreign Aid: the Role of Incentives and Information. As the title indicates, the paper focuses on incentives and on information.

      I highly recommend practitioners to download this paper to digest it, because it is an eye-opener.

      In a recent post above, I have flagged some of the most important thoughts on incentives that Claudia Williamson points out in her paper.

  32. Regrettably, little had changed in international cooperation’s practice since the adoption of the Busan principles. A serious review of aid alignment is needed: even when certain progress on issues as aid on budget, transparency or alignment have been made, we are facing stagnation on medium term predictability. At the same time the areas of results, use of country systems, aid untying and mutual accountability show increasingly weak performances. To improve effectiveness results, we need to acknowledge that incentives to breach Busan principles affect both donors and recipients.

    By one hand, donors continue with own specialization regardless of recipients Governments priorities and just over 50% of disbursements for governmental sector used country systems in 2015. At the 2012-2016 period, when donors fail to achieve agreed Aid Effectiveness principles they drop them and come up with something new. By the other hand, harmonisation is not a priority for recipient governments, inclined towards multiple bilateral dialogues.

    Simultaneously, two ‘new country priorities’ linked to development cooperation effectiveness emerged in the last years: 1) speed as a condition for a delivered-on-time aid and, 2) capacity building aimed to improve the country capabilities and not to only manage aid.

    In 2015, the adoption of the 2030 Agenda and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda set a new framework for international cooperation, calling for multistakeholder partnerships, leave no one behind and multiple private-public and international-national resources mobilisation among other key issues. Basically, the international community has been called to overcome the ‘business as usual’, that in turn requires to take risks.

    International development effectiveness is about managing risks. To remain relevant, Busan
    principles need to provide answers to complex problems arising from the new development cooperation framework such as aid graduation, private leveraging and leave no one behind.

    Even when Busan effectiveness principles were adopted grounded in evidence and still care,
    we cannot forget that effectiveness is a highly political agenda that should be permanently updated to meet the ever-changing challenges posed by the international framework unfolding. For the same reasons, Nairobi should provide space to talk more about politics and power that work against the Busan effectiveness principles full implementation.

    According to that, the HLM2 should: 1) undertake the commitment of establishing enabling
    environments required to ensure a broad multistakeholder participation, including local governments, private sector, civil society and academy; 2) establish new indicators in its monitoring framework to watch that no one is left behind in implementing development effectiveness principles; 3) promote principles for public support to private sector which include sustainability, human rights, taxes and jobs considerations; 4) address climate change challenge and; 5) provide strong incentives to developing and developed countries for compliance with agreed effectiveness development principles.

    1. Thanks Javia for your comments, aspects of which coincide with points made by other Contributors as well as Moderator Liada of Theme 1 and Moderator Meja of Theme 3.

      It would be nice if you reflect on clear and correct answers to How questions raised by Moderator Lidia and Moderator Meja against background of documents submitted by Lanre.

    2. Dear Javier,

      Thank you for sharing your reflection with us-I find that you flag important issues that require urgent actions.

      Please see my reaction lines above.

  33. Apologies for Cross Posting

    On Indivisibility of SDG: The 3 Themes of this Global Consultation underline the indivisibility of the 17 Goals of the SDGs’; the fact that SDG is the Master Global Agenda and so affects all Countries – Developed and Developing; and recognize that Theme 2 – Leave No One Behind Concept of the SDG is best practices in reality when Theme 1 – Actions to Improve the Effectiveness of Development Cooperation is built upon Correct Diagnosis, Correct Prescription, Correct Surgery and Correct Recovery Management and this greatly depends on Theme 3 – Maximizing the Contribution of Development Practitioners – A Multi Stakeholder Approach which ensure One Worldwide Approach (Not One Cap Fit All but a Generic Common and Systemic Approach that could be Adapted to meet the Unique and Specific Needs of each Stakeholder -Individual, Institution, Government, Community, Country, Region).

  34. Apologies for Cross Posting

    We are concerned that Moderator Debapriya of Theme 2 remain silent, even at this stage of this important Global Consultation. It is a Scar on Moderator Debaproya’s Conscience that he has been saddled with responsibility for “Leave No One Behind” Theme and is not jsut lagging behind but is yet to leave the starting block!!!!

    We urge Moderator Debapriya to awake and be alive to his responsibility, that he has freely accepted. Otherwise, we plead with Moderator Lidia and Moderator Meja to please take up the additional responsibility of processing contributions on Theme 2 as practical option for ensuring that the Global Consultation Interim Report and Final Report is each a Complete Document. This may involve asking leading questions on their respective Themes, based on points made in this Theme that help move forward discussion on their Theme.

  35. Apologies for Cross Posting

    We urge the GPEDC as well as the 3 Moderators to genuinely commit towards making this Global Consultation Count in the work towards achieving HLM2 Vision in particular and 203 Agenda Vision – AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 in general. To Deliver on this Commitment, we suggest:-
    1. The 3 Moderators release Interim Report on this Global Consultation by 12 November 2016 and ensure its dissemination to Stakeholders in the 3 Blocks we have identified, especially Delegates, National Leaders and World Leaders attending HLM2.
    2. The 3 Moderators release Final Report on this Global Consultation by 20 November 2016, about a week to HLM2 and ensure its dissemination to Stakeholders in the 3 Blocks we have identified, especially Delegates, National Leaders and World Leaders attending HLM2.
    3. Delegated, National Leaders and World Leaders participate effectively in the North South, North North and South South Intergovernmental Negotiation Meetings suggested in ISPE/EAG suggestions to GPEDC, HLM2 Organizers, Kenya Government and Kenya UN Mission and commit to reaching agreement in Global Interest.
    4. The Moderators and GPEDC take up with IMF 2016 Annual Research Conference, ARC Team, points raised by ISPE/EAG as practical option for ensuring that IMF 2016 ARC help find clear and correct answers to all How questions and related questions raised by Moderator Lidia, Moderator Meja, other Contributors and ISPE/EAG
    5. The Moderators and GPEDC help ensure Research & Data Frameworks; Planning & Implementation Frameworks; Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks; Learning, Results & Measuring Success Frameworks from Community to Global level that Works are Designed and Delivered

    1. Dear Lanre:

      There will be a consultation report available after we close it. You can bet on that!
      🙂

      1. Dear Lidia,

        Thanks for the assurance. However, much needs to be done in very little time. Can a Draft Report be ready for Comments to be received and processed in time for Final Report to be disseminated such that HLM2 Delegates have some days to reflect before HLM2 opens?

      2. Dear Lidia,

        Developments in recently concluded IMF ARC 2016 process; ongoing COP22 process and ongoing Pre HLM2 process give us serious cause for concern regarding:-
        1. Willingness of National Leaders and World Leaders on 193/306 UN Member States; UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF and CSOs/NGOs sides to accept correct solutions to real and complex BD Vision that is Integrat Part of National Resilience, Mitigation and Adaptation Plans, NRMAP with 9 Components including Agriculture, Infrastructure, Energy etc; AAAA, SDG, COP21; Agenda 21 aligned and harmonized with Community Development Plans and Country Development Plan in each of the 193/306 UN Member States problems on the ground in our World as is and not as any Stakeholder, no matter How powerful wish it to be.
        2. Willingness of National Leaders and World Leaders on 193/306 UN Member States; UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF and CSOs/NGOs sides to demonstrate and be seen to demonstrate genuine commitment towards fully implementing with effective monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the correct solutions in (1)
        3. Readiness of National Leaders and World Leaders on 193/306 UN Member States; UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF and CSOs/NGOs sides to accept that future of our fragile Planet depends on (1)
        4. Readiness of National Leaders and World Leaders on 193/306 UN Member States; UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF and CSOs/NGOs sides to accept urgent need to move away from current acceleration on MADning (Mutually Assured Destruction) Road to Doom and start accelerating on MAPing (Mutually Assured Prosperity) Road to BOOM.
        5. Willingness of National Leaders and World Leaders on 193/306 UN Member States; UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF and CSOs/NGOs sides to accept that Institutionalizing (1) – (5) in each Community in each of 193/306 UN Member States greatly depends on promoting and protecting new ideas, new thinking, new ways of doing things, new partnerships new rules, new procurement, new collaboration, new cooperation, new cohesion and new coordination.

        It is our hope that these serious issues will be effectively addressed by GPEDC, HLM2 Organizers, Kenya Government and Kenya UN Mission. Otherwise, HLM2, will like past and ongoing similar UN Events be Motion without Meaning. Allowed to occur, the ultimate consequences could be catastrophic for our fragile Planet.

      3. Dear Lidia,

        We are concerned that Moderator Maja’s intention is to produce a 1 Page Summary of this Global Consultation. it is clear that will edit out many good ideas and pertinent suggestions and could make nonsense of the whole effort.

        The idea of Technical Presentation on 29 November by the Moderators is welcome. But it should be a Comprehensive Report with clear Recommendations on Way Forward that should be presented. The Draft of Such Report should have been released for Comments before a Final Report is circulated to all Registered Delegates and Facilitators at least 5 Days to HLM2, if the Contents of the Report are to guide Delegates and Facilitators Contributions at appropriate Sessions during HLM2.

  36. Moderator Lidia,

    Please take a look at this
    http://developmentchangechampions.blogspot.com.ng/2016/11/global-push-to-achieve-sdgs-vision-and.html

    Can you get GPEDC Members who are attending IMF ARC 2016 to take action to move ideas and suggestions forward. Lanre got IV to attend. ISPE/EAG requested for Speaking Slot at the Economic Forum through space that is created by cutting 5 minutes from the existing 4 Panelists. The request was turned down with finalized Calendar given as reason.

    Also, we urge other Contributors and Observers who have colleagues attending ARC 2016 and with whom the thoughts expressed resonate positively to please consider taking similar action.

    1. Dear Lanre,

      Thanks for sharing the link. There is definitely a pressing need for action to be taken-these online discussions definitely help get everyone on the same page.

      1. Dear Lidia,

        Were you able to take Action before IMF ARC 2016 ended? Are you aware GPEDC or any other Stakeholder took Positive Action before IMF ARC 2016 ended?

  37. With regard to the 3 questions asked or open for discussion I have seen significant improvements in the sharing of data or information by development organizations. perhaps partly due to adopted information disclosure policies, improvements in IT systems which makes it easier to follow project information and more openness and willingness to work together. Some (development) countries do a far more better job than others but the trend is definitely towards more collaboration in the last few years. I have seen little interest in effective collaboration between countries to work together regionally to address local problems which can only be addressed in a regional context. I refer in particular to effects of climate change, to much, to little water, trade. To improve the effectiveness of development cooperation I would argue that more countries adopt the Open Government Initiative, look serious into adopting organizational knowledge sharing methodologies to ensure that available knowledge can flow more freely from country to country.

    1. Dear Daan:

      I agree with you: definitely, development organizations are sharing data and information more and more, and this is essential for countries to improve coordination.

      I think that the regional level plays an important role, because every day, more and more problems must be addressed in a regional context. In Latin America, we have solid experience in knowledge-sharing between countries. One successful experience of this kind is the Mesoamerica Integration and Development platform, which brings together 10 countries that share knowledge and best practices in 9 sectors. Considering this experience, I think that the GPEDC and the ongoing Initiatives must recognize the role regional platforms play and bring them on board.

  38. Javier Surasky’s reflection is a very important one to look at twice or many more times. He has flagged sensible issues that requiere dialogue and specially, commitments:

    (1) Busan principles need to provide answers to complex problems arising from the new development cooperation framework such as aid graduation, private leveraging and leaving no one behind

    (2) Even when Busan effectiveness principles were adopted grounded in evidence and are still relevant, we cannot forget that effectiveness is a highly political agenda that should be permanently updated to meet the ever-changing challenges posed by the international framework unfolding.

    (3) The political foundation and context of development effectiveness require that Nairobi provides space to talk more about politics and power that work against the Busan effectiveness principles and their full implementation.

    I would like to revisit some of his thoughts because they are essential for the upcoming HLM2, considering that the purpose is to continue advancing effectiveness of development cooperation.

    I want to begin by recalling a previous comment that I had already shared. Some authors-such as Bauer (2000) and Easterly (2001)-have pointed out that development cooperation is ineffective, and that it may even have a negative effect in Partner Countries. Other studies claim that its success is marginal, and that it has a zero effect on growth and on poverty indicators. (Williamson, 2008; Powell & Ryan, 2006), despite the fact that more than USD$ 103. 6 billion dollars of foreign aid has flowed to developing countries over the past 50 years (Easterly, 2006).

    Still, other authors claim that aid may have a positive effect on growth, when it is combined with the right conditions. Case studies point to the following conditions:

    1. Right incentives on providers and partner countries

    2. Transparency and available information

    3. Right policies

    4. Strong leadership

    5. Knowledge and knowledge management

    6. Enabling environment in public institutions

    7. Strong and effective institutions

    I recommend that practitioners read a case study that Claudia R. Williamson published in 2009, entitled Exploring the Failure of Foreign Aid: the Role of Incentives and Information. As the title indicates, the paper focuses on incentives. Based on her case study, l would like to take a closer look at how incentives condition effectiveness, because these are either overlooked or considered to be benevolent. I do believe that it is important to recognize that development cooperation implies several layers of self-interested actors: providers and recipient governments, cooperation agencies, producers in providing countries and citizens-each and every one responding to a particular incentive.

    One important example of a not-so-adequate incentive is that many providers disburse aid based on political motivation or geopolitcal incentives. Some providers assign funding according to the regularity with which a recipient country votes for their interests in the United Nations Assembly. We could perhaps say that the formula has somehow gone wrong then, because originally, the stated purpose of development cooperation is to promote economic and human development in less prosperous countries.

    According to Easterly & Pfutze (2008), there are three highly ineffective aid channels that result from special interest incentives:

    1. Tied Aid: recipients must purchase a determined amount of goods and services from the provider. Recipients can not purchase cheaper goods and services in their own country.

    2. Food Aid: in-kind provision of surplus or excessive agricultural products and foods that could be purchased at better prices and much cheaper in local markets in recipient countries.

    3. Technical Assistance: providers pay for activities that develop skills or provide knowledge-normally, providers require that technocrats that will provide the knowledge must come from the donor country. The problem is that these tecnocrats do not necessarily understand local problems.

    An oustanding and ongoing issue is that we tend to only focus on aid disbursements as the sole measure of success and overlook quality criteria. We must institutionalize the good habit of focusing on aid quality over aid quantities. This is the value added of the GPEDC, as it is a multistakeholder platform that facilitates discussions on quality and not just quantity.

    At the country level, aid fragmentation and donor proliferation is still a problem. In some cases, countries receive less development cooperation but must relate with more donors that seem to multiply-sometimes, even competing for funding with the government itslef! With so many agencies and Partners operating in a country, it is difficult to establish accountability and hold each one responsible for sucess or for failure.

    Some authors have analyzed aid agencies and they have stated that agencies operate in perverse environments, because:

    (1) they tend to surpress critcal feedback because they have an image to keep;

    (2) they avoid learning from the past and

    (3) they reduce competitive pressure that pushes them to deliver results.

    Rashid (2005) even declared that aid agencies suffer from considerable mismanagement…I guess capacities need to be fostered and developed not only in Partner Country Governments-Developmen Partners need to develop capacities for effectiveness, too!

    Can Nairobi open up the possibility to engage in earnest dialogue to solve these issues and move forward?

    Beyond Nairobi: Is this being discussed at the country level between recipient governments and provider country offices?

    Are provider HQs aware of this pressing and urgent need?

    1. Dear Lidia,

      I want to follow up on these clear words of reflection that you brought to this discussion, namely that: “The political foundation and context of development effectiveness require that Nairobi provides space to talk more about politics and power that work against the Busan effectiveness principles and their full implementation”. As a matter of fact, full deliberative approaches can help bring consensus and actions engaging foresight thinking to steer development effectiveness across complex domains. Your point sums up very well the current situation under which development cooperation finds itself entangled. I believe that the current projects and program analysis methods do not respond well, or rather said integrate in a comprehensive manner the complexity of adaptive systems to promote reforms, or anticipate the emergent components of the different stakeholders and institutions involved in development.

      As observed over the past couple of years, in policy circles, the trend has been tailored to focus on one aspect of a development problem, thus leaving the identification and integration of its multiple parts (in the system) unattended. So, in my opinion, effectiveness depends on the willingness/ability to act upon different parts in a system. Furthermore, this process requires the adoption of a comprehensive perspective of reality, especially to understand how patterns of power evolve and shape development cooperation. At this juncture, I think that it would be beneficial for development practitioners and policymakers alike to start working more toward the examination and identification of the connectivity (interdependence) at play in different public policy areas and interventions. The point that I’m trying to make is that effective collaboration should be based on the premises that coordination mechanisms should be receptive to the creation of knowledge networks, and therefore integrate different specialized sectors that take into account multiple characteristics and feedback loops to come up with more durable solutions.

      1. Dear Emmanuel: I completely agree with you-we need to understand how to set up and implement a deliberative and systemic approach in development cooperation-because development is more than the sum of its parts.

        All of us, development practitioners, need to implement a whole-of-government approach to improve the effectiveness of development cooperation!

  39. Dear Lidia,
    dear Debapriy,
    dear Meja,

    we need a context-sensitive approach to cooperation between development organizations.

    For efficient and effective development cooperation, it is very important that parallel and overlapping structures are avoided. All bi- and multilateral development organizations (DO) have to work towards that goal, for two reasons: to reduce costs and the burden for the partner countries.

    To avoid overlapping and parallel structures, the concept of harmonization has been promoted heavily since 2005. The harmonization paradigm has been reaffirmend in all fora since the Paris Declaration.

    Unfortunately, evidence from various studies show that the success of harmonization is only very limited. At the partner country level, people involved in harmonization efforts describe them as a “nightmare”.

    A number of necessary conditions have to be met to allow for real and succesful harmonization. The DOs have to have a similar budget size, the same mode of delivery etc. And it is very rare that all of the conditions are met, allowing two or more DOs to harmonize activities.

    However, a different, pragmatic solution exists to avoid overlapping and parallel structures. This path that is already widely followed in practive at the partner country level. The representatives of the DOs at country level have realized that harmonization does not work, but they still want to work for effectiveness and efficiency.

    Where harmonization is not possible, the representatives of DOs work for thematic and/or geographic complementarity. This thematic complementarity is best negotiated and achieved at the sectoral or sub-sectoral level. It is a very pragmatic way to avoid overlapping and parallel structures. It is suitable not for all but for most of the contexts.

    Therefore, we have to refrain from harmonization being the paradigm of interorganizational cooperation. Instead, we need a context-sensitive approach to harmonization. This context-sensitive approach sometimes favors complementarity, information sharing, or co-funding over harmonization.

    If you have any questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me. I have recently conducted several theory-led, explorative case studies on this issues. The respective study will be published next year.

    Kind regards,
    Michael Strautmann

    1. Dear Michael: your input and thoughts are very provocative and make a lot of sense to me, because it appeals to differentiated approaches that are base on the realities of each context. When will we stop looking for a one-size-fits-all approach in applying the effectiveness principles, which are still valid since Paris?

      I am more than interested in getting to know your case studies on harmonization

    2. Dear Michael Strautmann: it is important for all of us practitioners to have access to your study case studies on context-sensitive approaches to harmonization.

      Can you tell us when may we look for your study-case theories and where can we find them for downloading.

  40. Michael Strautmann has struck an interesting idea as we near the closing date of our online consultation: we must refrain from harmonization being the paradigm of interorganizational cooperation and evolve towards more context-sensitive approaches to harmonization, because this, in turn, may finish. complementarity, information sharing, or co-funding over harmonization.

  41. Hello Lidia and others. Sorry for coming in late to this discussion but I wanted to bring some input from the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI).

    Launched at the Accra HLF in 2008, IATI is a multi-stakeholder initiative that aims to ensure that transparent, good quality information on development resources and results is available and used to help achieve sustainable development outcomes.

    At the first HLM in 2014, IATI agreed a new Global Partnership Initiative (GPI) that was annexed to the Mexico Communiqué. This committed IATI members to accelerate their efforts to meet the Busan transparency commitment as well as working together to promote greater use of IATI data.

    Going back to Busan in 2011, IATI was referenced in the transparency commitment made in paragraph 23c of the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. Since then, the number of organisations publishing IATI data has jumped from a mere 17 to almost 500 today.
    IATI is a truly multi-stakeholder initiative with more than 70 members from across the world, including donor and partner country governments, multilaterals, foundations, private sector and CSOs. We continue to see steady improvements in the quality of the data from IATI publishers, ensuring that their information is useful.

    The value of IATI data is being increasingly recognised: partner countries such as Bangladesh, Myanmar and Liberia are seeing the benefits of using IATI data. For example, IATI provides information on resources previously not available to governments, and reduces the workload for staff collecting and using data in governments’ internal management systems.

    While progress to date has been impressive in terms of publishing, a strong focus going forward will be to increase IATI data use in different ways, including by supporting or promoting the development of online tools (like d-portal.org), and encouraging Partner Country governments to import information directly into their internal Aid Information Management Systems (AIMS)
    A second focus will be on providing support to monitoring of the SDGs: Open data has an essential role in monitoring the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The IATI Standard has recently been upgraded to capture information on the delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals.
    We’ll also focus on support to publishing humanitarian assistance: The IATI Standard is now fit-for-purpose for reporting information on humanitarian assistance and many agencies and governments recognised IATI’s role at this year’s World Humanitarian Summit by signing up to the Grand Bargain commitment of publishing their humanitarian spending to IATI within 2 years.
    We will continue to improve and further develop the IATI Standard and strongly encourage those who have suggestions on how to improve the IATI Standard to post their ideas on our online forum, IATI Discuss: http://discuss.iatistandard.org/c/standard-management.

    1. Dear Annelise,

      The International Aid Transparency Initiative and the IATI Standard is definitely a great improvement in development cooperation, and exemplifies how a multi stakeholder alliance can actually produce fit-for-purpose instruments that (1) help make cooperation more transparent and (2) help Partner Countries have timely and quality information that they can manage for decision-making, as well as to strengthen ownership and accountability.

      It is evident that IATI has triggered both demand and interest in publishing cooperation data: 17 organizations publishing in 2011 to 500 publishing data in 2016 shows that different actors see its value.

      I can very well remember that in 2011, when the Busan Outcome Document was being negotiated, paragraph 23c was intensely discussed. 5 years later, it is clear to see that the IATI has become a key area of improvement. Now, with the upgrade to capture information on the SDGs, IATI proves that it has continuously been evolving to fit demands, especially from Partner Countries.

      I have to confess that the IATI Steering Committee meetings were my favorite ones back in 2011, because I felt that we Partner Countries were building a tool according to our needs.

      Congratulations, Annelise! We can all be proud of IATI and the IATI Standard, and we can encourage different stakeholders to use the data that is being published.

  42. In South Korea, It is difficult for civil society to work with the government through the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. According to the explanation of government officials, South Korea is not required to bear responsibilities to evaluate and report progress of domestic implementation of Busan commitments. While Korea is only responsible for supporting the implementation of about 80 countries that are participating in the second monitoring round, there are no rooms for national dialogues on development effectiveness between the government and multi-stake holders. Civil society rarely gets opportunities to participate in the decision-making process for the implementation of SDGs, which led to arbitrary practices of development policies. Therefore, we cannot provide any specific examples where different development actors have worked well together to achieve sustainable development in the context of GPEDC.

    To make partnerships such as GPEDC work, active dialogues between multi-stake holders and disclosure of information are essential preconditions. The decision-making process should be transparent and open for various actors to ensure that everyone has a say to improve the effectiveness of development.

    1. Dear Ko:

      Yes! To make partnerships such as GPEDC work, active dialogues between multi-stakeholders and disclosure of information are essential preconditions; the spirit of the GPEDC as a multi stakeholder platform is to ensure that everyone has a say to improve the effectiveness of development. This is aligned with what SDG 17 prescribes: the inclusive and horizontal PARTNERSHIPS which must be conformed among different actors to work together towards reducing that hideous poverty and achieving the SDGs!

      How can we work together to make this happen?

  43. To make partnerships such as GPEDC work, active dialogues between multi-stakeholders and disclosure of information are essential preconditions; the spirit of the GPEDC as a multi stakeholder platform is to ensure that everyone has a say to improve the effectiveness of development. This is aligned with what SDG 17 prescribes: inclusive and horizontal PARTNERSHIPS which must be conformed among different actors to work together towards reducing that hideous poverty and achieving the SDGs!

    How can we all work together to make this happen?

  44. Presently, we have a vision and technology that investors are waiting for. What is needed is a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for this we are discussing a Public – Private Partnership (PPP)
    with the Energy Commission of Nigeria (ECN). We would like the ECN to act as an Escrow company for the Finance (seller) and Off Taker (buyer) to interact with. The Escrow company (ECN) would guarantee compliance and the PPA.

    1. This really looks like a feasible funding model! We must explore Public-Private Partnerships and pilot innovative ways, as mentioned.

  45. Dear all:

    I want to thank each and every one of you for participating in this HLM2 Discussion with such great ideas and reflections…I am very grateful for this wonderful flow of opinions and ideas; this exchange is rich in ideas and proposals that Ought to be implemented to strengthen development effectiveness.

    Though some think that changes are scarce, important improvements have been identified: increased transparency through publishing data and aid information; participatory budgets, as in the Porto Alegre case; regional platforms that show that common approaches are more effective than multiple approaches; multi stakeholder partnerships and more capacity to tackle issues are just some of the improvements that have been identified.

    Some areas that still require improvements have also been flagged by participants: international context and coherence for Foreign Direct Investments and Private Development Aid flows; harmonizing procedures; more citizen participation and involvement; ownership and the leed to measure, manage and report results Have all been flagged.

    Fighting property and inequality is still lying at the heart of development cooperation since its inception. We must be deft and nimble to learn from mistakes to avoid history repeating itself…this partnership allows us to capitalize lessons and share reflections, ideas and thoughts.

    It has been a privilege and a big honor to look for your thoughts and reflections-I really looked forward to checking the forum and finding such great ideas, all in one place! I have enjoyed this online discussion immensely.

    See you in Nairobi…either face to face or virtually!

Comments are closed.