Draft GPEDC Work Programme 2023-26 for Consultation

Please use this space to comment and/or re-upload the document with your changes!

Comments on behalf of Christina Etzell / European Commission are below and attached.

1) Do you have any suggestions to further tighten the work programme to deliver on the commitments of the Geneva Summit Declaration?

• Either specify “unfinished business” with clear plans for follow-up or might consider deleting from the text as it can lead to unnecessary discussions regarding past commitments and priorities among these.

2) How will your constituency contribute to implementing this work programme? Which core outputs and activities will you be able to lead or support?

• Support the monitoring exercise – providing financial support to JST and supporting EU Delegations’ engagement on the ground.
• EC will consider in which countries it could take on the role of “Development Champion” after greater clarity on what the role specifically entails.
• Making efforts to integrate DE principles when it comes to the rollout and implementation of Team Europe Initiatives (TEIs) and the Global Gateway Strategy (GG). The EC intends to put TEIs and GG Strategy on the agenda when organising discussions with EUMS development effectiveness focal points.
• Following the discussions on the assessment of the Kampala Principles (KP), encouraging partner countries to include the principles in their monitoring exercise.

3) In addition, do you have interest in leading or supporting thematic learning initiatives? (If the answer is ‘yes’, please be in contact with relevant SC members to shape up your engagement).

4) Do you wish to include events or other activities in the action plan or calendar of events?

Other comments on draft GPEDC Work Programme:

• EC agrees with the ToR’s for the SC in terms of the represented constituencies (i.e. EC’s constituency is EU Member States).
• While we understand the country-led nature of the exercise, we would expect some further specification of the roles of constituencies and their country offices (i.e. who mobilises additional stakeholder groups such as private sector for KP, division of labor between national coordinators and development partners, etc.).
• We would appreciate further details on the roles and responsibilities of “Development Partner Champions”, i.e. what is expected of these champions (in order to know if constituencies can deliver).
• The establishment of structures is needed to follow-up on the individual countries, where do they stand in the monitoring and what support do they need. JST should inform constituencies on new countries joining the exercise and their individual timelines so DPs can inform their country offices.
• Continuous follow-up on budget and funding shortages of JST needed.

Work Programme DRAFT_ENG_ec.docx1.12 MB

Trade unions welcome the structure and the proposed core outputs and activities of the work programme, but consider that it should better embed the commitments of the Geneva Summit Declaration. In particular we think it is important to clearly reflect how the work programme will contribute to: develop social protection systems further, in order to pursue universal social protection; ensure that effective development cooperation contributes to promoting decent and sustainable green jobs; and to support a gender-responsive just transition, as reflected in the following commitments of the Summit Declaration:

• Paragraph 13: We are determined to develop social protection systems further, in order to pursue universal social protection in line with the relevant ILO recommendations on national floors of social protection and with the UN Secretary General’s initiative for a Global Accelerator on Jobs and Social Protection for Just Transitions.
• Paragraph 17: We will put forward concrete efforts towards ensuring effective development co-operation that contributes to the realisation of the commitments of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement, including by ensuring a people-centred, gender-responsive approach to development and promoting quality infrastructure investment, and adaptation, the reduction of inequalities, accessible and quality education for all, as well as decent and sustainable, green jobs.
• Paragraph 21: We are determined to support a gender-responsive just transition, to ensure that no one is left behind in the fight against climate change, particularly women and Indigenous peoples who are disproportionately affected by climate shocks.

We suggest including these important priorities within core output 2: Driving informed policy dialogue & action: country dialogues and strategic partnerships, to ensure that these are tackled in the specific dialogues and actions that are put forward at country level.

Comments on behalf of ali Bamba / Cote D'Ivoire are attached.

Work Programme DRAFT_circ_FR_DSE Version 2.docx337.15 KB

The work program seems well structured and convincing to partner countries to deliver on the summit of ED summit declaration. 

The country's government is committed to fielding 4th monitoring round in 2024, initially, we thought it in 2023, but due to the national election this year we are shifting to 2024, and we are taking initial preparation to mobilize support from different stakeholders. Across the monitoring exercise, we hope to generate evidence, based on the evidence we may start the country dialogue involving all relevant development actors i.e. CSOs, Pte. sectors, academia, DPs, policy levels of both public and Pte sectors, local govts and parliamentarians. The ultimate aim is to build awareness and change behaviour towards enhanced effectiveness of development cooperation. 

We are keen to lead thematic learning and discuss with other stakeholders to frame the ideas. Let us have time to develop.

Please find attached the Draft work program with some tracked changes. 

Please note that I am putting the above answers and observations here on behalf of Mr Farid Aziz, Additional Secretary and designated national coordinator at the country level to coordinate the 4th monitoring round and, ex-officio member of the Steering Committee.

Work Programme DRAFT_ENG.docx1.12 MB

In the attached you have CPDEs feedback.  This is primarily the General Feedback at the opening, with a few specific suggestions in the text.

Work Programme DRAFT_ENG_ CPDE (for submission).docx1.11 MB

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Programme of Work. We first want to congratulate the JST and co-chairs for this very coherent and well written document. The CANZUS constituency is happy with the overall direction of the GPEDC and Canada has only minor comments in the attached document. We look forward to approving a final version at the Steering Committee meeting in May.

No member of our constituency currently wishes to propose additional thematic learning initiatives at this point. Canada would like to flag its interest in continuing its engagement in the Private Sector Engagement and DAC Effectiveness TLIs. We look forward to hear more about the planned activities and deliverables of all stakeholder-led working groups.

Work Programme DRAFT_ENG_0.docx1.12 MB

Comments on behalf of Inter-American Development Bank (IDB):

1. Do you have any suggestions to further tighten the work program to deliver on the commitments of the Geneva Summit Declaration? 

• On page 2, paragraph 6, we would suggest rephrasing the last part of the sentence “These challenges are deeply interlinked, context-specific and have profound effects at global and country level. Because of their complexity, and despite a growing urgency, political momentum to address them is hard to maintain”. In our opinion, there is political will, particularly because of the urgency. The issue is that because of the complexity, finding consensus on prioritization and actions is more difficult.

• On page 4, the title of the box is “The New Monitoring”. For clarity, we would suggest adding a substantive, e.g., Monitoring Process, Exercise, or Framework, as done on page 5 where the wording is “new monitoring exercise” (paragraph 1, first sentence) and “new monitoring process” (last sentence of last paragraph).

• On page 5. Paragraph 1, there is a reference to continuing “to monitor progress on past commitments, including on the unfinished business of the aid effectiveness agenda”. While footnote 2 on that page states that “unfinished business” does not have an agree definition or scope, but many stakeholders understand it to refer to commitments made prior to Busan (2011), for precision (and accountability) we would suggest listing the unfinished business items.

2. How will your constituency contribute to implementing this work program? Which core outputs and activities will you be able to lead or support?  

• We agree with the proposal (Output 2, Objetive 3) of supporting Sweden with dialoguing with MDBs, through the MDB Working Group, on development effectiveness by Q3 2023.

3. In addition, do you have interest in leading or supporting thematic learning initiatives? (If the answer is ‘yes’, please be in contact with relevant SC members to shape up your engagement). 

4. Do you wish to include events or other activities in the action plan or calendar of events?

• We consider the preliminary list to be well prioritized and have no events to add.

Dear colleagues,

on behalf of the regional and local government constituency, we’re first of all thanking the JST and co-presidencies for the good work and timely work plan proposal. Also our apologies for this belated feedback. Our remarks:

1. Do you have any suggestions to further tighten the work program to deliver on the commitments of the Geneva Summit Declaration?

1.1 The general approach is very adequate. Our advice is that GPEDC, as a global endeavor, should position itself as a high-profile agent, and focus on a few initiatives where we can safely affirm that there are a number of key world stakeholders engaged. The GPEDC should be managed as a prestigious brand with some "flagship" initiatives that guarantee visibility and presence in some selected spaces. This is compatible with, for example, organizing or joining yearly or thematic campaigns. The existing international agenda can be used to seize opportunities for back-to-back meetings with other agents, but avoiding a simply nominal presence of the GPEDC in too many events or sites. Also we would however suggest to include in a more prominent way the local and regional aspects of the work program as it shows.

1.2 Although effectiveness is about the "how" of development cooperation, this "how" should have proven impacts on the "what", that is the SDG results matrix, with its metadata and metrics. More references to specific SDGs, notably SDG 17, would help the program resonate more clearly with the current concerns of development countries and partners.

2. How will your constituency contribute to implementing this work program? Which core outputs and activities will you be able to lead or support?

The regional and local government constituency has different entry points into the work program, and existing ongoing activities by our networks can complement and support some of its objectives. We envisage the following contributions and outputs.

2.1 Active participation of regional and local governments, through their national associations, in the monitoring exercises undertaken at country level in the different monitoring rounds. The main objective is the involvement of sub-national government levels in the processes of elaboration of monitoring reports. This is a rather new undertaking and should be piloted in a few initial countries, then learn from experience, refine procedures, etc. ORU-Fogar and UCLG will identify sub-national focal points, and monitoring national focal points will be asked to liaise with them and integrate them into the national consultation mechanisms.

2.2 Focus on the effectiveness of the public policies by development partners (with a focus on DAC members) vis-à-vis the integration of subnational public administrations into national plans. This relates to “decentralized cooperation”, as presently studied by the OECD, and how their practices can be better and more effectively integrated into a whole-of-government foreign development strategy. This work and reflection work stream can be referred to as the “multi-level governance” of development cooperation policies at the national level. In this way, decentralized cooperation can be made more explicit as an effectiveness development cooperation target.

2.3 Enhancing subnational data, at different levels. Regarding the provision of official development assistance, ORU-Fogar has been and will remain active in working with different partners to facilitate subnational ODA reporting. This is necessary to get a clearer, more defined picture of decentralized cooperation at the global level, and to identify opportunities for synergies and complementarities (and change behaviour when necessary). Then at the results level, more granular data and information on SDG dynamics and outcomes are necessary to better understand the global sustainable development landscape, including the in-country distribution of results and how to improve cohesion and territorial and social balance.

3. In addition, do you have an interest in leading or supporting thematic learning initiatives? (If the answer is ‘yes’, please be in contact with relevant SC members to shape up your engagement).

ORU-Fogar and UCLG are very interested in participating in activities led by other partners, notably national governments. We are also identifying possible specific learning initiatives with a multi-stakeholder interest. Two possible ideas are subnational finance; and the effectiveness challenges in international urban development programs and subnational budget support.

In a more internal key, the ORU and UCLG networks (notably the UCLG Learning unit) will be leveraged as a resource to build capacity in sub-national public agents vis-à-vis more effective development cooperation. This is a rather internal endeavor within our constituencies, and is connected to the commitment of our networks to better cooperation and to the will of using decentralized cooperation as a mechanism to maintain a political momentum towards effectiveness. The “roadmaps” for this engagement have been laid out before the Geneva summit, and consist of two renewed instruments: ORU-Fogar’s “The Commitment of regions before the 2022 Effective Development Cooperation Summit” and UCLG’s “The Role of Local and Regional Governments in Development Cooperation — A New Call to Action Towards 2030 and Beyond.”

4. Do you wish to include events or other activities in the action plan or calendar of events? 

Not at this moment, but this can be an ongoing task.

Comments on behalf of Colombia (see attached)

• These thematic learning initiatives are based on South-South and Triangular cooperation modalities?
• If Colombia wanted to present a thematic initiative on how to improve the involvement and monitoring of the private sector in strategic alliances for development, what would be the procedure? What is the amount of this funding? Is there a thematic restriction?

Work Programme DRAFT_ENG Comments Colombia.docx1.12 MB

Comments by WINGS on behalf of the philanthropic constituency.

Our apologies for this belated feedback. Please find our comments below.

WINGS Comments in the Consultation on the Draft GPEDC Work Programme 2023-26:

1)     Do you have any suggestions to further tighten the work programme to deliver on the commitments of the Geneva Summit Declaration?

WINGS viewed the Geneva Summit Declaration as an important milestone in creating a “soft law” standard on the four effectiveness principles to which governments and other stakeholders could hold themselves to account. The Declaration provides a framework for discussion, setting the broader parameters for national dialogues. While it is not binding, it provides details on mutual expectations between development actors. 

We would appreciate further details on the roles and responsibilities of the described “Development Partner Champions”, i.e. what is expected of these champions (in order to know if constituencies can deliver).

Agreeing with CPDE, WINGS suggests that the work programme should make explicit references in the action plan with important aspects of the Geneva Outcome Document to monitor the implementation of agreed conclusions. As CPDE noted, the Outcome Document includes a commitment to civic space “We are determined to reverse the trend of shrinking of civic space wherever it is taking place” (Para 25), and enabling environment “We will build trust, safeguard stakeholders’ enabling environment… (Para 24); “We are determined to accelerate progress in providing an enabling environment for civil society, including in legal and regulatory terms, in line with internationally agreed rights” (Para 25); and “We are determined to provide evidence on and address issues such as: … enabling environment for civil society through the Global Partnership Monitoring and other sources of information.“ (Para 43). 

While the 2023-26 GPEDC Work Programme has as one of its core outputs and related activities to generate evidence through a new monitoring, there is no framework in place to understand how  progress in following through on the commitments to the Outcome Declaration will be assessed. If this remains undefined, then WINGS suggests that the proposed thematic learning initiative on civil society, which will focus on enabling Civil Society Participation and addressing shrinking civic space, could put the Outcome Declaration’s commitments to an enabling environment on the table to discuss and develop how best to assess adherence to this new standard in evolving GPEDC context.

2)     How will your constituency contribute to implementing this work programme? Which core outputs and activities will you be able to lead or support?

In WINGS’ further work, we  will be improving the effectiveness of development co-operation by actively participating in multi-stakeholder dialogue, bringing our member organisations together to share their comparative strengths and learnings as well as to support their capacity development as they determine their needs, and to demonstrate the contribution of philanthropy and its impact in delivering on the SDGs through provision of resources, both financial and non-financial, for  locally-led solutions for local communities.

WINGS will support its members to participate in Country Dialogues, but in particular would see greater funding would be needed from supportive governments for ensuring that all stakeholders including labour, parliamentarians, civil society and philanthropy understand how to assist and contribute to the multistakeholder dialogues. Guidelines are useful but in-person explanatory assistance from the Joint Support Team would be invaluable for the smooth organisation of the Country Dialogues.

WINGS believes there should be greater efforts to extend GPEDC national dialogues to other stakeholders, including local authorities, public development banks as well as the wider private sector. WINGS plans to make further, stronger outreach efforts to these other stakeholders, particularly partners that can support relevant communities to build and strengthen the  ecosystem for local resource mobilisation. Deepening strategic partnerships with other sectors for improving the government’s enabling environment through policy improvements will be key.  

3)     In addition, do you have interest in leading or supporting thematic learning initiatives? 

WINGS confirms its interest in co-leading a thematic learning initiative on civil society participation with CPDE and governments at the GPEDC. In our active participation to shape the final proposal for this thematic learning initiative, WINGS will re-state our clear, shared understanding that the term “civil society” broadly includes philanthropy, since we have previously discussed that philanthropy can inadvertently be left out of discussions about shrinking civic space and promoting civil society participation. 

As noted in our answer to Question 1, we believe linking the civil society Thematic Learning Initiative to the GPEDC monitoring exercise and country dialogues could give some focus to the group discussions and activities, assuming the latter are fully enabled with funding.  

4)     Do you wish to include events or other activities in the action plan or calendar of events?

Not at this time.

WINGS.Feedback.GPEDC Work Plan.2023-26 (Final).pdf116.76 KB

Comments by Bob Kalanzi, on behalf on AUDA- NEPAD

1. The approved New delivery model and the Work program

The work program needs to incorporate the new delivery model framework approved at the summit. In the new delivery program, the role and responsibilities of the regional entities such as NEPAD were discussed and agreed. The piloting of the African caucus was approved in the summit outcome document.

The current work program would need to locate regional entities in the delivery of its output especially in the following areas

• Supporting the Generation of EVIDENCE, through the new monitoring exercise, to be a basis for: 
• Driving INFORMED POLICY DIALOGUE & ACTION including through inter regional and regional dialogues and strategic partnerships and learning 
• Fostering POLITICAL AWARENESS, BEHAVIOUR CHANGE & UPTAKE, through targeted advocacy and outreach at the ministerial and heads of state level
• Establish an awareness-raising programme for the exchange of information and best practices on development effectiveness, particularly the Monitoring Exercise in Africa in general and other regions of the world
• Upscale Political and technical issues to the AU Executive Council and Heads of State to situate this important agenda at Summit level incl. Steering Committee Seats

2. Monitoring and Evidence Generation

There is a need for support and facilitation of evidence generation through global and regional support initiatives. The program needs to outline how the global and regional support initiatives are designed to unlock country process from the inception phases to data collection and action plan development. This is critical for the success of monitoring. The African development architecture has a structure that runs from AUDA-NPAD (AU – mandated by the Heads of Ste, Regional Bodies and Member States)

3. Budget for the Work program

The budget for the work program seems to be limited to JST and does not factor the resource needs supporting initiatives of regions and countries for monitoring and the dialogues. This makes it difficult to have a complete picture of the plan and our envisioned change.

Strategic Inputs from AUDA-NEPAD On Africa Process.docx141.35 KB