CSOs AND AID EFFECTIVENESS

1
CSOs AND AID EFFECTIVENESS
2
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.

3
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

4
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

5
Paris declaration and donor commitments

• 56 commitments around
• Five principles
• Ownership
• Harmonization
• Alignment
• Managing for development results
• Mutual accountability

6
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

7
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

8
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

9
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.

10
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.

11
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.

12
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.

13
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 good practice
  relating to civil society and aid effectiveness
  by CSOs themselves, by donors and by developing
  country governments (lessons of good practice).

14
(No Transcript)
15
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

16
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
• DACs 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

17
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

18
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.

19
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

20
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.

21
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.

22
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?

23
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?

24
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?

25
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?

26
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?

27
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?

28
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
  societys 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?