1 / 13

The International Framework of Aid and Development Effectiveness

The International Framework of Aid and Development Effectiveness . Karin Fällman, Sida 13 February 2014. Presentation. The Aid and Development Affectiveness Agenda Brief history The Busan Process and the Busan Partnership Document /GPEDC The Implementation of GPEDC Framework

latham
Download Presentation

The International Framework of Aid and Development Effectiveness

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The International Framework of Aid and Development Effectiveness Karin Fällman, Sida 13 February 2014

  2. Presentation • The Aid and DevelopmentAffectiveness Agenda • Briefhistory • The Busan Process and the Busan PartnershipDocument/GPEDC • The Implementation of GPEDC • Framework • Review of progress

  3. The Declarations • HLF-1: Rome 2003 • HLF-2: Paris 2005 • HLF-3: Accra 2008 • CSO EE • CSO DEFF • HLF-4: Busan 2011

  4. Preps for HLF-4 Busan • Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment • Review of Evidence of Progress • Key Messages • Communication Strategy – inclusion into HLF-4 and BpD • CSOs via OF/BA • Reports of Progress • CSO Messages • Communication Strategy – inclusion into HLF-4 and BpD • CSO Sherpa for Busan – a seat at the negotiation table

  5. CSO Enabling Environment • Multi-dimensional notion incl. various elements of a country’s governance • Task Team’s definition (UNSR, ICNL et.al.): • Legal Framework: Keepingwithexisting international HR commitments • Policy and Practice: Systematic and inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogue fora • Aid Effective Donor CSO Support

  6. The Busan PartnershipDocument TT and CSO messages reflected primarily in §22 on the role of CSOs and §11 and §12 on democratic ownership: • Recognition of CSOs as independent development actors • Provision of an enabling environment for CSOs • Recognition of CSOs’ efforts to enhance their dev. eff. • Importance of MSD (also at the core of BpD’sproposal for a “new, inclusive and representative Global Partnership for Effective Development co-operation...that embraces diversity”)

  7. ConcernsregardingBpD’sclarity and consistency with regard to “democratic ownership” BpDparagraphexamples: • §11: “Partnerships for development can only succeed if they are led by developing countries…” • § 18: “transparent, country-led and country-level results frameworks and platforms will be adopted as a common tool among all concerned actors” Risks: • Requirement for all non-state actors to align with one set of national development plans or results frameworks • A “one results framework” approach could stifle the right of initiative of non-state actors

  8. GPEDC • Structure: • Three Co-chairs • Steering Committee incl. CSO-rep. • OEDC/DAC – UNDP support secretariat; • Monitoring framework with 10 indicators, incl. CSO EE • Uneven progress • Four SC meetings; first HLM in Mexico (April 2014) • Progress on implementing the Busan commitments • Tax and domestic resource mobilisation • MICs and effective development co-operation • Knowledge sharing, South-South and triangular co-operation • The private sector and effective development co-operation

  9. Task Team’s Review of Evidence on implementation ofBpD 1(2) • Democratic ownership and inclusive development partnerships • MSD effective and on the rise • Ownership seen as alignment with governments’ plans • Inclusive partnerships are seen to exist when CSOs act as co-implementers of government programs • Enabling environment for civil society • Continuous trend towards shrinking space incl. growing restrictions on access to funding and limitations on peaceful assembly

  10. Task Team’s Review of Evidence on implementation ofBpD 1(2) • Donor support to and engagement with civil society • Policies in place and a few good examples (CoP) • Gap between policies and practice and disrespect for RoI/limited support to CSOs as dev. actors in their own right • CSOs’ development effectiveness • Istanbul Principles and its framework; CPDE • Challenges include CSOs’ internal management and governance; coordination and information sharing across CSOs and with governments; results monitoring and reporting; and ensuring demand-driven programming.

  11. What’s the focus?

  12. For the next session…. • Focus on what works in the implementation of CSO related commitments, and • Sweden’s track record

  13. Thankyou!

More Related