HLF-4
Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness
(Busan, 29 nov – 1 Dec 2011)
From Paris to Busan, for effective aid
Hubert de Milly OECD DCD/EFF
UNRIC, Bruxelles, 04 03 2011
An effective menu…
STARTER
Monterrey Consensus………………..(2000)
Rome HLF1- Harmonization …….(2003)
MAIN COURSE
Paris Declaration …………… (2005)
Accra Agenda for Action ………….(2008)
SIDE DISHES …..(All 2010)
•Bogotá Statement on South South C.
•Dili Declaration on Fragile states
•Istanbul CSO principles
DESSERT
Busan HLF4 ……………… (2011)
What about tomorrow’s dinner?
How it started 10 years ago
 2000-2002, a diagnostic: to reach MDGs,
ODA is:
– Part of the solution (and must be increased)
– But also part of the problem (doing harm?)
 2003-2005, a mutual commitment (or
“trade off”): to increase aid effectiveness:
– Donors relax constraints (using country syst.)
– Recipients improve policies and management
– Both reconvene in 2008 and 2011
2005-2010: building a comprehensive aid effectiveness agenda
 Paris Declaration: 5 pillars,
56 commitments, 12 indicators
 Accra Agenda for Action: everything
that every stakeholders must do to make
aid effective.
Behind the scene: The WP-EFF
24
Countries receiving ODA
8
Countries both receiving and providing assistance
31
Donor countries
9
Multilateral organisations
6
International Civil institutions: CSOs, foundations, local
governments, parliaments
WP-EFF: a partnership to work together
CHAIRS
Vice Chairs
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (26 members)
WORKING PARTY PLENARY (80 participants)
A Ownership &
Accountability
 Broad-based
Ownership
 Donor support to
domestic
Accountability
(Govnet)
 Mutual
Accountability at
country level and
international
Accountability
B Use of
Country Systems
 Support
implementation of
commitments.
C Transparent
& Responsible
aid
 Aid
transparency
 Strengthen
capacity &
performance.
 Predictability
 Improve
transparency on
use of country
systems
 International
division of labour
 In-country
division of labour
 Conditionality
D
Assessing
Progress
 Monitor
implementation of
PD & AAA.
E
Managing
for
Development
Results
 Evaluate
implementation
 Document
progress
 Monitoring the
fragile states
principles
 CSO and aid
effectiveness
Workstreams: TT-SSC, TT-Health as a Tracer Sector, Capacity Development…
6
Does it work?
The Monitoring Survey
 The major strength of the PD
 12 indicators, 3 surveys
• 2006 baseline (2005 data)
33 participant countries
• 2008 mid-term (2007 data)
54 participant countries
• 2011 final survey (2010 data) 91 participant countries
 Donors and government complete a short
questionnaire in each country,
supplemented by qualitative reporting
 Results in June 2011.
Does it work?
The PD independent evaluations
 Phase 1 (2008) on implementation
 Phase 2 (2010-2011) on impact, showing (?)
– Positive impact at sector level: catalysing,
strengthening legitimizing coordination for
greater investment, efficiency and results
– Better prioritisation of country needs
– Improved enabling environment for CSOs
– No move to budget support, no pressure to
do so
2011: a 4th HLF to do what?
 Stocktaking from the Paris / Accra process
 Agreeing on features of high quality aid and
its monitoring framework towards 2015
 Situating aid in its broader development
context:
–
–
–
–
More actors
Diversified approach: MICs, LICs, FS, regions
Catalyst dimension: trade, security, climate…
Results and right-based approaches
Who? Where? When?
 A political event that attracts ministerial
attendance, with decisive outcomes
 Busan, Bexco. Host: Government of Korea
 At the end of this year: 29 November to 1
December 2011.
Stocktaking of progress Presenting findings to HLF4
Key Messages and
Recommendations
Progress
since Paris
(PDMS+other
evidence)
+
Country Chapters
and statistical
annexes
Evaluation
of implementation
Format and Approach for HLF-4



Process
– Multi-stakeholder, open and transparent
– Evidence-based inputs on what really matters
(drawing on monitoring and evaluation)
To be decided (by mid 2011):
– Type of outcome document
– Main issues
Format
– Plenary sessions
– Showcasing sessions
– Interactive/political debates on a few issues…
– … to complete the Busan Outcome Document.
Busan HLF 4: Preliminary format
Day 1:Progress Since
Paris
Morning
Session
Day 2: New Development
Challenges
Day 3: Actions for the
Future
Plenary 1:
“Progress Since Paris: What
lessons have we learned?”
Review evidence from PD
Monitoring & Evaluation
Plenary 2:
“Looking Forward – How can
aid address emerging
development challenges?”
Political Debate 3:
“What actions will we take
now?”
Interactive sessions
(themes): Recommendations
to Outcome Document
Interactive sessions:
(themes): Recommendations
to Outcome Document
IS
Afternoon
Session
Ongoing
13
IS
IS
IS
Political Debate 1:
“Unfinished business: What
we still need to do”
•Recommendations to
Outcome Document
IS
IS
IS
IS
Political Debate 2:
“Making development effective:
What can aid do to leverage
progress in development?”
•Recommendations to
Outcome Document
Negotiation of Outcome Document
Thematic Events (showcasing)
•Ministers review outcome
document
•Combined with Tidewater
meeting ?
Closing Plenary :
Endorse Outcome
Document
Timeline
2011
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Deadline for submission of proposed themes
Menu of Options – identifies themes for events, of
any kind, at HLF 4 (incl. potential organisers based
on expressed interest) and of the outcome doc.
Start of negotiation process. Decision on major
themes for the outcome doc; attribution of
responsibilities for related events
[depending on state of negotiation process]
Decision on interactive sessions & political
debates
On-site negotiation of the Busan Outcome Document:
The format and link with the Political Debates will be defined in
due course.
*
Paris-Busan, what a nice story!
 Aid works
 Aid decided by itself to overcome
coordination difficulties (Paris)…
 … and to check the results 6 years later!
 What do you want Busan to bring?
– A new/revised framework for aid effectiveness?
– Some new reforms, within and outside aid?
– Already: post 2015 (post-MDGs) ideas ?