INCREASING ACCOUNTABILITY AND
DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS THROUGH
GENDER RESPONSIVE PLANNING AND
BUDGETING 26-28 JULY 2011,KIGALI,
RWANDA
PARTNER COUNTRIES’ VISION AND
PRIORITY ISSUES FOR HLF 4
Presented by
HELEN ALLOTEY
DIRECTOR EXTERNAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS MINISTRY OF
FINANCE AND ECONOMIC PLANNING ACCRA-GHANA 1
CONTENT
INTRODUCTION
Changing Context of Development Co‐operation
PCs Achievements from Paris and Accra
Identified Challenges
PCs VISION for Busan
 Conclusion
2
INTRODUCTION
PC Vision and Priority paper was put together
between 12 and 13th May 11,by drafting team from
Egypt, Ghana, Honduras, Colombia, Timor Leste,
Vietnam, Mali & Pacific Islands Forum Countries.
Inputs were received from 19 partner countries, in
addition to feedback from 15 countries on the draft
position paper
 Other inputs include, findings of the independent
evaluation of the results of implementing Paris
Declaration and online surveys carried out by the
Capacity Development for Development
Effectiveness Facility (CDDE) to identify priority
issues as viewed by partner countries.
3
INTRODUCTION cont.
Drafting Team members include Talaat
Abdel‐Malek (Egypt), Helen Allotey (Ghana), Lidia
Fromm Cea (Honduras), Sandra Alzate Cifuentes
(Colombia), Helder da Costa (Timor Leste), Cao Manh
Cuong (Vietnam), Modibo Makalou (Mali), and
Alfred Shuster (Pacific Islands Forum Countries).
4
INTRODUCTION Cont.
PCs vision, drew from the Changing Context of
Development Co‐operation;
It highlighted main achievements since Paris and
particularly since Accra, based on concrete
evidence, and pointed out persisting challenges;
It identified priority needs, to take forward for
discussion with DPs and other stakeholders in Busan
5
CHANGING CONTEXT OF DEVELOPMENT
CO‐OPERATION
Involve:
(i)The persisting question of the effectiveness of ODA
flows, despite its increased volume over the past
decade.
(ii) Increased volume and delivery of aid flows from
Non‐DAC aid providers, global funds and private
foundations, and continued use of own rules outside
PCs country systems and attendant high transaction
costs.
(iii) Continued proliferation of multilateral and
bilateral Aid delivery agencies, involving complexities
in aid management.
6
CHANGING CONTEXT OF DEVELOPMENT
CO‐OPERATION CONT.
(iv) Series of HLF: in Rome (2003), Paris (2005) and
Accra (2008), which are expressions of persisting
dissatisfaction with ODA performance and desire to
improve quality/outcome of aid.
(v)The evolving relevance of SSC as a tangible source
of development co‐operation, requiring more
learning on its modalities/practices.
(vi) Negative impact of recent global crises (food,
financial crises, economic slowdown) on the pace
and quality of development outcomes.
7
CHANGING CONTEXT OF DEVELOPMENT
CO‐OPERATION CONT.
(vii) Other global challenges like climate change,
other forms of development co‐operation besides
ODA (trade, foreign direct investment, technology
transfer, and development finance) which are
affecting the pace and pattern of future development.
(viii) Evolving architecture for international
development co‐operation, with inclusion of
non‐DAC aid providers (public and private) and
various delivery modalities.
8
ACHIEVEMENTS FROM PARIS & AAA
Accurate measurement of PCs achievement
of the PD Principles and impact of development
co‐operation, was methodologically difficult to
assess.
PCs acknowledge the positive influence and
support of the aid effectiveness agenda towards
some achievements so far made.
Progress though, remains inadequate in
meeting PC commitments and insufficient in
contributing to sustainable outcomes.
9
ACHIEVEMENTS FROM PARIS & AAA Cont.
Visible positive influence of A/EFF agenda, was
traced from the monitoring surveys/evaluation
reports, including the 2011 Monitoring Survey, which
pointed to some progress made as follows:
PCs are now assuming ownership by
developing/refining national development strategies
and plans, and broadening the participation of
non‐government stakeholders to achieve more
inclusive ownership.
Drafted national aid strategies and policies, linking
aid to development plans; strengthening their
organization structure/capacity for managing aid.
10
ACHIEVEMENTS FROM PARIS & AAA Cont.
ALIGNMENT: some improvement reported as a
result of open and transparent dialogue with DPs
through joint consultative groups, mixed
commissions, performance‐based evaluations, high
level development forums, and similar mechanisms to
highlight priorities and promote responsive actions
by DPs.
HARMONISATION: limited progress has been made
in harmonizing aid, as aid fragmentation continue.
11
ACHIEVEMENTS FROM PARIS & AAA cont.
MANAGING FOR DEVELOPMENT RESULTS: limited
progress, despite significant progress in reforming
country systems (e.g.. procurement, public financial
management, and auditing systems) towards
supporting alignment of aid with PCs national
priorities.
MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY: Much progress made.
MA mechanisms including many “work in progress”
initiatives being developed and negotiated b/n PCs&
DPs.
12
ACHIEVEMENTS FROM PARIS & AAA Cont.
Associated with these, are the parallel development
of Aid Management Platforms and M&E systems to
monitor and evaluate progress of aid‐funded projects
and programmes to improve the reporting of results.
SOUTH‐SOUTH CO‐OPERATION, is also gradually
evolving.
13
PCs IDENTIFIED
CHALLENGES
14
PCs IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES
PCs recognize that all areas of challenges affect all
PCs alike, be it (Fragile States, L/ MICs, Small Island
Developing States (SIDS).
Aid predictability, transparency, and aid
fragmentation continue to be a problem as a result of
mode of administration of Development Assistance
and PCs call for more joint consultations, for
improvement.
Aid allocation and decisions are not properly
aligned, to contribute tangibly, to outcomes .
Aid sometimes, are not completely consistent
with, and squarely embedded in national ownership
and national priorities.
15
PCs IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES cont
DPs continue to fund NGOs, without adequate
information to PCs governments on the volume and
purpose of the funding.
PCs envision that alignment to national goals and
priorities has to apply to all aid regardless of
whether it is destined to the central government
or to local administration and non‐government
entities.
 Improved Harmonization not effectively in place.
Assumption of greater leadership role by PCs
lagging.
16
PCs IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES Cont.
Provision of own vision and guidance lagging.
Comparing advantages of various DPs in‐country,
not yet tried out.
DPs responsiveness to PCs vision limited.
agreement on time‐bound action plans to tackle aid
fragmentation not yet in view.
Burden of meeting diverse reporting and
management expectations of DPs, unabated.
MfDR principle yet to be translated, into a set of
actions with supporting techniques, to deliver
results.
17
PCs IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES Cont.
Lack of minimum set of indicators to monitor
progress in achieving more aligned, more
harmonized, more predictable and more
transparent aid.
PCs desire that the call for “value for money”
should translate into concrete contributions to
enhance development effectiveness.
Pragmatic and effective mechanisms to
represent Mutual accountability, yet to
materialize.
18
PCs IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES Cont.
Aid management systems, to transparently
capture information on all aid flows (official or
private sources), not comprehensive.
Capacity deficiencies exist in both PCs and
DPs to make better use of available
information for operational and policy
decisions
and
in
monitoring
the
implementation of agreed commitments.
TAs sometimes are not demand‐driven and
consistent with development priorities
19
PCs IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES Cont.
 Trend of declining ODA, & threat of aid exit, are
compelling some of PCs to seek other bilateral and
multilateral debt, and may lead to debt distress.
(NB: gleaned from literature that, the ODA flows in 2010 from DAC members was a
0.32% of their combined GNI, which is less than 0.7% of their GNI pledged as ODA
many years. It has been estimated that if the pledge had been delivered , 282billion
dollars would have been available and which would have facilitated the attainment of
all the MDGs which are in effect Gender embedded and would have ensured
sustainability of Gender responsive development. )
Mutual trust has been lacking and therefore a
challenge, since it undermines the establishment of
more productive and mutually beneficial relationships
b/n PCs and DPs.
20
PCs VISION FOR BUSAN
 PCs envisage that Busan deals with the following:
(i) Unfinished aid effectiveness agenda
(ii) Adoption of common but differentiated approach
for development assistance between fragile states,
L/MICs, consistent with PCs respective contexts, given
their peculiarities.
(e.g.For MIC largest number of the world’s poor live
in MICs, for fragile states, consideration of
coordinated package of both short and longer term
assistance to move from fragility to agility are of
relevance.)etc.
21
PCs VISION FOR BUSAN Cont.
(iii) Firm DPs political commitment and delegation of
authority to country level representatives as well as
granting more flexibility in addressing the specifics of
the country context and needs.
PCs welcomes a more decentralized approach by
HQ to allow country offices to exercise more flexibility
of more relevance to local conditions.
Need to strengthen DPs own capacities, at
headquarters (HQ) and the country level, to deliver
more responsive capacity development support.
22
PCs VISION FOR BUSAN Cont.
(iv) Embracing a development partnership approach
in line with MDG8 (strengthening global
partnerships, which translates into DPs behavioural
change, and moving away from the traditional and
outmoded donor-recipient approach.
(v) Increase in development co‐operation
delivered through SSC and triangular
co‐operation modalities as a relevant and
cost‐effective approach with great potentials,
side by side with, and complementing
North‐South co‐operation.
23
PCs VISION FOR BUSAN Cont.
(vi) DPs to refrain from pushing supply-driven
technical assistance (despite good intentions) and to
respond to demand-driven and need-based initiatives.
(vii) Use of Country Systems tops the list of PCs
vision.
PCs call for increased pace of mutually supportive
change in reforming systems and policies by DPs and PCs.
Evidence from various evaluations and reforms of
Country Systems, shows that PCs have done more to
meet commitments required of them compared to what
DPs have demonstrated so far.
24
PCs VISION FOR BUSAN Cont.
PCs desire DPs to jointly collaborate and make
fuller use of the reformed systems, including the
delivery of aid on budget.
Call for more political commitments and ACTIONS
and translation of these into implementation plans
and monitoring mechanisms to assess progress.
(viii)Complete phasing out of parallel implementation
units (PIUs) which continue to undermine whatever
limited national capacities exist.
(xi) Continued support for capacity development (of
which country systems is an important component).
25
PCs VISION FOR BUSAN Cont.
(x) PCs envisage showing and playing greater
leadership role in the following:
in articulating needs and invite DPs to join in
implementing agreed plans.
in development of short and longer term action
plans to achieve capable institutions, as well as use
aid as a catalyst to leverage innovation and best
practices.
in alleviating sector congestion and negotiating for
pooling of resources, to ensure reduction of resource
wastage and transaction costs.
26
PCs VISION FOR BUSAN Cont.
(x) Developing transparent aid management
information system which will serve the Mutual
Accountability purposes.
PCs envision a Mechanism which deals with policy
and removal of operational bottlenecks, to improve
on outcomes.
PCs call for replacement of general statements
which affirm joint accountability but lacking in
practical arrangements and real impact.
27
PCs VISION FOR BUSAN Cont.
(xi) DPs to make a more concerted effort to apply a
multi-year time frame provisioning of ODA
commitments.
(xii) DPs fulfillment of the outstanding commitments
0.7% GNI delivery of ODA, as aid quality has become
more pressing.
(xiii) PCs envisage further discussion on Aid exit
policy options.
(xiv) Increased involvement non-DAC aid providers
to become active participants in the design and
functioning of the new aid architecture.
28
PCs VISION for Busan Cont.
(xv) Build on the experiences gained through existing
mechanisms to evolve Universal principles governing
future development co-operation to replace the Paris
principles and others in use.
(xvi) Identify other issues such as aid of trade,
development financing and climate change which call
for more coordinated actions which the new
architecture should address.
xvii) Consideration of trade, investment and other
policies (beyond aid) which influence outcomes of
PCs development efforts.
29
CONCLUSION
 It is envisaged that at Busan a new paradigm shift and new
partnerships in development co-operation will unfold.
Gender issues should take a central stage in the new
development paradigm as PCs envisage a development
partnership approach in line with MDG8 (of strengthening
global partnership, which translates into DPs behavioural
change, and moving away from the traditional and outmoded
donor-recipient approach.)
Indeed Gender issues cut across all the MDG targets and these
targets are now squarely embedded in most PCs
National/Sectoral Development Frameworks, including
Budgetary resource allocation frameworks.
Gender Advocates should be able to canvas that Aid flows in
the new aid architecture should be delivered through the
Country Systems to ensure that Gender issues are appropriately
resourced in Budgets for Gender responsive development
effectiveness.
30
CONCLUSION Cont.
In this connection, Use of Country Systems have
toped the list of the PCs vision, to jointly collaborate
and make fuller use of the reformed systems and
delivery of aid on budget.
Currently, substantial proportion of ODA inflows in
many PCs continue to fall outside the budget and PFM
framework, making monitoring of the financial inflows
and Gender targets difficult, and impacting negatively
on achievement of gender development results.
 It also undermines capacity to manage gender
sensitive and Gender result based, national
development agenda.
31
CONCLUSION Cont.
PCs desire to stay the course beyond Busan, to
agree with DPs on actions to accelerate the
achievement of the MDGs by 2015 of which Gender
issues are integral part of.
Gender issues should therefore occupy a central
stage and be made an integral part for the USE OF
COUNTRY SYSTEMS in the new paradigm shift of
development partnership framework after Busan.
32