CSOs AND AID EFFECTIVENESS

Is aid reducing poverty and achieving development? Development strategies and program effectiveness –Human rights based and empowered development Aid management and delivery –Free for all competition, weak country ownership, transaction costs and duplications, etc.

Aid management and delivery High Level Forum Rome on Harmonization High Level Forum 2 in Paris on Aid Effectiveness High Level Forum 3 in Accra

Ghana September 08 High Level Forum to take stock of Paris Declaration implementation CSO parallel process –Monitoring implementation –Advocacy to strengthen governance and accountability processes –Advocacy to deepen aid effectiveness of donors and partners

Paris declaration and donor commitments 56 commitments around Five principles OwnershipHarmonizationAlignment Managing for development results Mutual accountability

CSO concerns Unprecedented broad range of commitments to reform aid system and aid delivery However structured narrowly on aid delivery rather than broader framework of development and human rights

CSO concerns Commitments lack ambition, have low targets and unclear benchmarks No commitments at all on such key issues as tied aid, conditionality and accountability of donors

Accra HLF3 Taking Stock HLF3 will take stock of implementation –Monitoring survey –Generally low level of awareness –Even lower level of commitment Accra Action Agenda

CSO and aid effectiveness Advisory Group of WP EFF on CSO and aid effectiveness To look into the two overarching functions of civil society as development actors in the broad sense, and more specifically in terms of its role in promoting accountability and demand for results.

Advisory Group mandate To facilitate a multi-stakeholder process that aims to clarify: –The roles of civil society in relation to the Paris Declaration –CSO aspirations to deepen the wider national and international aid effectiveness agendas –Key considerations and principles that will be internationally recognized by all of the relevant parties.

Advisory Group mandate To advise WP-EFF and the HLF Steering Committee on the inclusion of Aid Effectiveness and Civil Society as well as other issues to deepen the aid effectiveness agenda in the agenda of the Accra Forum, in a manner that builds on the Paris Declaration.

Advisory Group mandate To prepare, in consultation with the Steering Committee, the WP-EFF and civil society organizations, proposals on Aid Effectiveness and Civil Society for discussion as part of the Accra agenda.

AG expected outcomes · Better understanding and recognition of the roles of civil society organizations (CSOs) as development actors and as part of the international aid architecture, and engagement of CSOs in general discussions of aid effectiveness (recognition and voice). · Improved understanding of the applicability and limitations of the Paris Declaration for addressing issues of aid effectiveness of importance to CSOs, including how CSOs can better contribute to aid effectiveness (applying and enriching the international aid effectiveness agenda). · Improved understanding of the applicability and limitations of the Paris Declaration for addressing issues of aid effectiveness of importance to CSOs, including how CSOs can better contribute to aid effectiveness (applying and enriching the international aid effectiveness agenda). · Improved understanding of good practice relating to civil society and aid effectiveness by CSOs themselves, by donors and by developing country governments (lessons of good practice).

Role of CSOs Role and responsibility of csos –The role of civil society as a pillar of good governance –Its role in providing effective delivery of development programs and operations –Its role in the social empowerment of particular groups and the realization of human rights. Social transformation As donors, as channels of assistance and as grassroots actors; as watchdogs

CSO Role as part of international aid architecture $14.7B US in 2005, equal to about 14% of all Official Development Assistance (ODA) or 18% of ODA exclusive of debt cancellations DAC’s top 15 CSO funders ranged between 6 to 34% of their bilateral ODA, totalling approximately $4.6 B US advocates and watchdogs of both governments and donors

The role and recognition of the voice of CSOs CSOs as development actors and as watchdogs Objective for greater development results and effectiveness Policy dialogue at country and international levels

Commitments in the PD In commitment 14, in which partner countries commit to “take the lead in coordinating aid at all levels in conjunction with other development resources in dialogue with donors and encouraging the participation of civil society and the private sector” In commitment 39, in which donors commit to “align to the maximum extent possible behind central government-led strategies or, if that is not possible, donors should make maximum use of country, regional, sector or non-government systems” In commitment 48, in which partner countries commit to “reinforce participatory approaches by systematically involving a broad range of development partners when formulating and assessing progress in implementing national development strategies.”

How apply PD to CSOs? What are implications of PD? Local ownership, alignment and partnership Donor coordination and harmonization, and program-based approaches Managing for results Mutual accountability

Aid Effectiveness as relationships Ownership, leadership and mutual accountability For csos –Between CSOs and the people they serve or represent –Between and among CSOs at country level and beyond –Between Northern and Southern CSOs specifically –Between CSOs and governments –Between donors and CSOs.

Relationships entail: Sharing of resources in pursuit of mutually defined objectives Negotiations and practices regarding the use of those resources Regulatory frameworks specifying the obligations, responsibilities and restrictions on behaviour of the partners Knowledge-sharing Policy dialogue Accountability relationships Trust and legitimacy.

Partnerships of CSOs and citizens What characteristics of CSO operations enhance or limit their effectiveness in pursuing development results on behalf of poor and otherwise marginalized citizens? What is the relationship between these characteristics and the aid effectiveness principles of local ownership, alignment and mutual accountability? What strategies and systems might CSOs implement to strengthen their various accountabilities, and to prioritize conflicting claims of accountability for the greatest development effectiveness? What can donors do to facilitate the implementation of such strategies and systems?

Good practice - CSOs at country level With reference to a particular country or region, how can the make up of civil society best be summarized? What are its strengths and weaknesses and what sort of structures are in place to promote more effective civil society intervention in development over time? With reference to a particular country or region, what sorts of collaborative arrangements are in place to ensure greater effectiveness in areas where collaboration can pay dividends, such as advocacy work and policy dialogue?

Good practice - CSOs at country level What models of good practice can be identified that strategically combine the advantages of decentralized or community-based efforts with those of a larger programming perspective? Taking CSO success or lack of in working together more programmatically as a starting point, what conditions helped to ensure (or undermine) those efforts, including those relating to the character of civil society itself in that particular context, and the role that donor models of support may have played?

CSOs from the North as donors What distinctions need to be made between Northern and Southern CSOs with regard to the roles that they play in development? How might those roles complement each other more effectively? How do Southern CSOs perceive the intermediations role often played by Northern CSOs, in terms of value added? What sorts of guiding principles might shape international CSO aid partnerships to promote relationships based on mutual learning and benefit, mutual respect, and accompaniment of citizens’ initiatives in developing countries to further their own development options? How might these principles relate to those of the Paris Declaration?

CSOs from the North as donors What is the feasibility and desirability of joined-up models of Northern-CSO support for CSO development programs in the South? What are some examples of good practice in this regard? What are the strengths and limitations of the INGO model, involving reliance on INGO affiliates to deliver programs in the South, and what measures might be taken either to enhance the contribution of such organizations to development and better align them with domestic priorities and systems, or to level the playing field so that domestic CSOs capable of making a qualitatively different type of contribution are also encouraged to emerge and to thrive?

Role of governments in providing enabling environments and support for CSOs What specific examples of good practice exist in providing an enabling environment for CSOs and their effectiveness as development actors (re: legislation, regulatory framework, tax regulation, means for participation, access to information, protection and exercise of civil and political rights)? To what extent are the roles of CSOs and of elected bodies complementary rather than competitive in different countries and regions? In what areas of representation and advocacy are CSOS most active in different countries and regions, and internationally and what measures might be taken to improve the contributions of civil society in that regard? Looking at the division of labour between CSOs and government, in which cases does a separation of efforts make the most sense? In which cases would enhanced collaboration be desirable, for example in the context of SWAps or other development programs intended to be relatively comprehensive in scope, and how might such collaboration be promoted?

Donor models of support for CSOs Considering that much donor support is currently channelled through Northern CSOs, what is the balance of advantages and disadvantages of channelling funds in this way? Should measures be taken to promote a greater share of funding to be channelled directly to Southern CSOs, and if so, how could the advantages of North-South CSO partnerships be maintained? In specific countries and regions, what is the current balance between responsive and more targeted or strategic forms of intervention? Does this balance seem about right, or could alternative approaches be recommended, including strategies that would help to build up the capacity of civil society to add value to development processes, over time? What features do models of donor support need to have in order to decrease the costs of uncoordinated, project-based funding, while addressing the multiple and diverse needs of civil society in an increasingly strategic way? What are good examples of this at the country level? How can donors and CSOs “tell the story” of civil society’s contribution to development in a convincing way? What sorts of results-management approaches and systems can best allow CSOs to strengthen their various accountabilities, and to accommodate conflicting claims of accountability for the greatest development effectiveness? What can donors do to facilitate the implementation of such approaches and systems?