Richard Manning Seoul, 7 October 2013

 Value of nationally-owned strategies for achieving key outcomes  …..supported by internationally consistent data collection and monitoring…..  ….and by regular review at national, regional and international levels

 Governments always likely to default to easy, politically convenient, and short-term decisions  Governments in any case unable to deliver on issues that involve behaviour change at community or individual level  And Governments severely limited in ability to deliver services directly

 CSOs roles in: Delivery of services Community engagement Monitoring Campaigning Holding Governments to account

 NOT just ‘NGOs’  Value of eg religious institutions, trade unions, professional associations and standard-setting bodies, independent media, think-tanks etc

 For: ◦ Ensure comparability ◦ Facilitate comparison ◦ Basis for campaigning ◦ Should encourage donor support  Against: ◦ Not locally owned ◦ May be inappropriate ◦ Ignore sub-national dimension  So: use them intelligently – good servants and bad masters!

 Run independent process(es)  Access and use data  Monitor public service delivery  Challenge poor and inappropriate policies  Ensure own standards and legitimacy

 Good start by post-2015 and other CSO groups at international level. Need to bring the development and environmental communities together more effectively.  Key actions however at national (and maybe sub- regional) level. UNDP role has been important in facilitating this, but must be locally-owned.  Understand and communicate with Governments but maintain independence and ability to challenge  Work together!

 The percentage of countries and territories for which most (16 to 22) of the MDGs indicators series present at least two points in time rose from 2 to 83 percent in a decade (Ecosoc E/CN.3/2013/21).  But data still lacking (eg at subnational level)  Data needs quality analysis and dissemination: role for think-tanks and media, as well as for campaigning NGOs.

 Much discussion of this  Need more evidence of what works (eg reports by Svensson et al and now Zeitlin et al on Uganda)  But undeniably an important area for CSO interest

 Classic role for campaigning NGOs  Needs good underlying analysis and arguments, based on real experience  Needs enabling environment

 Importance of an operating environment that encourages pluralism and openness  Too often, public institutions can be capricious and unaccountable  And Governments too sensitive to criticism  ‘The conditions in which civil society operates are shaky at best and even deteriorating in many parts of the world.’ Civicus, 2013  Governments need to be readier to allow uncomfortable criticism, but…

 …CSOs cannot reasonably expect to be taken seriously if their own house is not in order  CSOs legitimacy is not ‘built-in’ (like that of an elected legislature) but needs to be earned  2006: Istanbul Declaration, and INGO Accountability Panel  2011: Busan HLF: International CSOs declared that alignment of CSO accountability is a key factor in the improvement of aid effectiveness. Leads to new CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE).  Ongoing: Joint Standard Initiative (JSI), which is developing common verifiable standards for the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP), Sphere and People in Aid  Proposed: Global Standard for Core CSO Accountability (ACFID (Australia), InterAction (US), Philippine CNC (Philippines), QuAM (Uganda), Rendir Cuentas (Latin America) and VANI (India))

 Thank You!