ACCOUNTABLE AND TRANSPARENT
DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION:
NEXT STEPS AND THE DCF ROLE
Matthew Martin
Development Finance International Group
DCF High-Level Symposium
Vienna, 12 November 2009
STRUCTURE





Introduction/definitions
Global Mutual Accountability
National Mutual Accountability
Transparency
Role of the DCF
2
INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS

One key thematic focus area for DCF. 4 issues:






What practical suggestions to improve global and regional
mutual accountability (MA) mechanisms ?
What best practices in national mutual accountability
mechanisms, and how to improve/spread ?
How can transparency best facilitate MA ?
What could be the role of the DCF in assisting such
improvements ?
Builds on earlier work for DCF as well as by many other
stakeholders, inputs from >30 programme country officials
obtained through other work of Development Finance
International including advising on AAA negotiations, and
extensive consultations with stakeholders on first draft
Nevertheless, still “draft” and comments welcome for revision
3
and inclusion as chapter of DCF report in 2010
INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS

Terminology:
Programme countries = developing countries = recipients
 Providers = donors/lenders = development partners



Mutual accountability definition: of all parties, for
development results and IADGs/MDGs
Paper and presentation have narrower coverage to
focus discussion and generate concrete ideas:
Focus on forums accounting for aid quantity/quality/results
 Because many forums for programme country
accountability, stresses this but focus on mutual
accountability ie of providers as well
 Discuss briefly “domestic accountability” of programme and
provider governments to domestic stakeholders but will be
4
subject of papers/debate in future DCF

GLOBAL MA (1): FINDINGS


Multiple global mechanisms, analyses and processes, but few
promote systematic behaviour change by providers, because:
 Several key stakeholder groups (programme countries,
Southern providers, parliaments, local government,
Southern civil society) do not have sufficient voice in them.
 The agenda for accountability is dominated by provider
concerns and areas of consensus, and does not fully reflect
key aspects of concern to other stakeholders
 Most stakeholders lack sufficient analysis and information
on practices and changes by individual providers at the
national level.
 Behaviour change varies with the degrees to which
stakeholders concerns are reflected.
Several good regional MA mechanisms but do not:
 cover all global regions or sub-regions;
 engage with all stakeholders; or
 connect sufficiently to global or national mechanisms.
5
GLOBAL MA (2): RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Annual review of global MA progress, judged by:
i. increased balance in representation of programme country executives,
parliaments and other stakeholders;
ii. closer coordination or rationalisation of mechanisms;
iii. integration of independent spotlights into official processes;
iv. practicality to assist national MA, especially by providing evidence on the
behaviour of individual providers;
v. provider and programme country behaviour change; and
vi. provider and programme country participation/formal commitment
2. Annual review of progress in each global mechanism,
judged by i-vi +:
vii.quality of evidence (especially on the behaviour of individual providers in
specific programme countries);
viii.ownership and participation of the maximum proportion of its targeted
shareholder groups;
3. Target 4-5 key mechanisms to fund and improve, prioritising
those with systematic assessments of individual providers, and
strong non-executive stakeholder voices
6
GLOBAL MA (3): RECOMMENDATIONS
4. Ensure official mechanisms (WP-EFF, DCF) integrate nonofficial independent spotlights into their work
5. Continue reinforcing representative programme country,
Southern provider, parliament, other stakeholder voices, as
well as agenda–setting role designing frameworks/targets, in
the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness and the DCF
6. Ensure mutual accountability on development is a key focus
in G20, with strong programme country voice
7. Promote global, regional and sub-regional peer learning and
networking for capacity development on aid/development
effectiveness, especially among programme country
governments, parliaments and civil society stakeholders.
8. Increase “mutuality” of DAC peer reviews by including
programme country governments, parliaments, CSOs
9. Increase funding for grassroots monitoring/MA initiatives
10. Establish MA frameworks between providers and regional
7
organisations which they fund
NATIONAL MA (1): FINDINGS

Definition of national MA mechanisms:



as well as being held accountable for development results and
aid management, programme countries hold providers
collectively and individually accountable for aid.
Only 7 countries have fully functioning MA, and change in
provider behaviour patchy and slow. Even best mechanisms
have important gaps.
Key barriers to effective national-level MA include the lack of:




information and data for programme countries on how providers
are performing elsewhere, and capacity to draw on existing
global data;
coherent programme country aid policies, or coordination to
implement these policies effectively across all government
agencies.
capacity and mechanisms for programme countries to analyse
provider performance
transparency in sharing information among providers and
programme countries.
8
NATIONAL MA (2): FINDINGS

Key components bringing success (therefore basis for
assessing progress though not “one size fits all”) are:







national programme country aid policy (where necessary as for
Joint Strategy with providers);
strong programme country political leadership, and clear
institutional responsibilities for aid management;
locally-driven aid quality and results monitoring frameworks,
including annual targets for individual providers;
comprehensive databases which allow programme countries to
monitor quality and effectiveness themselves;
independent analytical input from civil society and independent
monitoring groups to help resolve key problems;
peer pressure among providers (especially in countries with proMA providers); and
programmes to build programme country capacity to monitor,
9
analyse and negotiate MA
NATIONAL MA (3): FINDINGS contd


Accountability of providers and programme country
governments to other stakeholders is even less advanced.
Virtually no national MA mechanism debates performance with
parliaments, local government agencies or civil society, let
alone bringing change as a result, due to:








dominance of programme country accountability to providers;
low willingness of many providers and programme country
governments to open another “front” of consultation on aid issues;
low capacity of other stakeholders to interpret and analyse information;
poor transparency of information; and
low willingness of stakeholders to engage.
Domestic accountability mechanisms in programme countries
are often weak, largely due to low capacity and resourcing of
non-executive stakeholders.
Domestic accountability in provider countries can be strong,
but often takes little account of global aid effectiveness
agenda.
DA could powerfully reinforce MA (topic for future DCF
10
symposia)
NATIONAL MA (4): RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Annual review of national MA mechanisms for presence of “components
for success”, and progress in changing behaviour and increasing results
Establish focal point to document national MA best practice and
facilitate sharing through communities of practice and online libraries
Improve existing mechanisms to increase best practice examples (and
promote peer learning on why they work)
Establish new mechanisms in 30 countries in 2010-11, notably in fragile
states;
Establish global or regional programmes for systematic capacitybuilding support to programme country governments on national MA.
Separate programmes to reinforce capacity of parliaments, local
governments and CSOs on MA and wider aid issues
Further debate at next DCF Symposium on domestic accountability to
reinforce mutual accountability
For individual providers: systematic integration of aid
effectiveness commitments into all country strategies and projects
+ develop regular processes through which held accountable by
partner group
11
TRANSPARENCY (1)




Longstanding efforts to build global, provider and
more recently programme country databases
Recently reinforced emphasis on “transparency”,
including documents/conditions in AAA, multiple new
(esp. data) initiatives and campaigns for
transparency – notably IATI, PWYF, reinforcement of
existing efforts, raising stakeholder expectations
Too early to evaluate success of most initiatives,
though clear are major gaps, duplications, risks of
non-participation or delay by major stakeholders…
Key factors in/criteria for success of initiatives will be
degree to which information is:
12
TRANSPARENCY (2)








aligned with programme country budgeting systems;
collected from all providers (including developing countries,
foundations and CSOs; and all of the main DAC providers);
encouraging programme country governments to increase
transparency on use of aid;
collected also from programme country stakeholders
(including parliamentary, audit office and grassroots impact
monitoring) as cross-checks on official sources;
building on national monitoring and evaluation frameworks
so that results of aid can be easily compared with national
development goals;
accessible and widely disseminated to stakeholders;
going beyond data to include documents on conditionalities,
policies and procedures
used to analyse provider agency and programme country
government behaviour, and thereby to provoke debate on
mutual accountability.
13
TRANSPARENCY (3): RECOMMENDATIONS
1. annual assessment of the degree to which these
criteria are being applied, multi-stakeholder
expectations are being fulfilled, and provider (and
programme country) behaviour on transparency and
effectiveness are changing.
2. a sharp increase in capacity-building support for
analysis by programme country governments,
Northern and Southern parliaments, audit offices,
local government representatives and CSOs, to
ensure transparency promotes accountability.
3. greater networking and peer learning among
transparency initiatives to avoid duplication, learn
from best practice, and respond adequately to multistakeholder needs.
14
CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES: CONCLUSIONS


Country circumstances: all mutual accountability
and transparency initiatives will be more problematic
to achieve in fragile states and aid orphans. These
countries should therefore be a particular focus.
Gender accountability and transparency: there
has been no systematic focus placed on gender
issues at the global, regional or national levels of
mutual accountability, in assuring either the
participation of women’s organisations, or the degree
to which aid is having a specific gender impact. More
focus could be placed on gender aspects in all future
MA and transparency initiatives. (more at lunch !)
15
KEY POSSIBLE ROLES OF THE DCF



Already multiple global and national actors, with whom DCF must work
closely
Immediate role is multi-stakeholder HLS. Thereafter, key possible DCF
roles are:
1. Conduct annual assessment of progress on global MA (overall and
individual mechanisms), national MA and transparency, based on
criteria and elements discussed above
2. Continue multi-stakeholder consultations on progress in future DCF
analysis and meetings
3. Ensure that all stakeholders (including independent and non-official
assessments) have their views fully reflected in DCF outputs, and
disseminate these outputs widely
As regards the individual issue areas analysed, the DCF could also:
4. Work with the WP-EFF Task Team on MA to identify key independent
global and regional MA mechanisms to promote and improve
5. Assist UNDP and communities of practice to document and
disseminate best practice in national MA and transparency, and
provide advisory input to capacity-building programmes.
6. Advocate a dramatic increase in capacity-building support to potential
analysts of information on development cooperation so that greater
transparency promotes accountability.
16