Eun Mee Kim* & Jae Eun Lee**
* Dean & Professor, Graduate School of International Studies
Director, Institute for Development and Human Security
** Researcher, Institute for Development and Human Security
Ewha Womans University
“2014 Australasian Aid and International
Development Policy Workshop”
Australian National University & the Asia
Foundation
February 13-14, 2014
Please do not cite, quote or distribute without the authors’ written permission.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. From Aid to Development Effectiveness
III. New Global Partnership
IV. South Korea’s Challenges as an Emerging Donor
V. Asian Approaches to Development Cooperation
2
I. Introduction
 Global Partnership for Effective Development
 New global development cooperation framework launched
 Growing importance of emerging donors’ influence in
development activities
 South Korea as an emerging donor
 Joined OECD DAC as 24th member
 Hosted G20 Summit Meeting (2010) & Busan HLF-4 (2011)


Led discussion and efforts towards a new global framework
Encouraged participation of emerging donors (including BRICs)
 Steering Committee of Global Partnership

Representative of providers of development cooperation (with EU
and US)
3
II. From Aid to Development Effectiveness
1. Evolution of Aid Effectiveness Framework
Millennium Development Goals by 2015
Monterrey Consensus (2002)
 Commitment to increase development finance
 ODA/GNI = 0.7%
HLF-1 (First High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness)
 Rome (2003)
 Need for more effective management of aid for
maximization of development impact
 Led by OECD/DAC WP-EFF
 Aid Harmonization
4
 HLF-2, Paris (2005)
 Paris Declaration endorsed


5 Principles: Ownership, Alignment, Harmonization, Resultsbased Management, Mutual Accountability
Practical and action-oriented roadmap by 2010: Goals with
specific indicators & target years, monitoring process
 HLF-3, Accra (2008)
 Accelerate and deepen implementation of the Paris
Declaration

Three areas for improvement: Ownership, Inclusive Partnership,
Delivering Results
5
 Analysis of the Paris Declaration Monitoring Survey
(OECD, 2011):
 Real, but slow and uneven results
 Real changes in aid management and delivery practices
 Paris Principle as global norms for development
cooperation
 Targets far from being universally achieved
 An Increasingly Complex Development Environment
 New Global Development Challenges including food
insecurity, climate change and armed conflict
 Enlarging role for different actors and stakeholders
 Aid as a catalyst of development - complementary to other
development resources
6
2. HLF-4, Busan (2011)
 The most inclusive agreement on global development
cooperation


2,500 participants: (1) 160 donor and partner countries including
South-South partners; and (2) 70 international organizations, NGOs,
congresses, and business corporations
Negotiating status given to diverse development stakeholders on an
equal footing: NGOs, business corporations
 Reaffirmed commitment for MDGs and sustainable
development
7
 “Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation”
(Outcome Document)
 Shared Principles:

Ownership of development priorities by developing countries
 Focus on results
 Inclusive development partnerships
 Transparency and accountability


Shared Principles of ownership, results and accountability are
directly derived from the Paris Principle
New Commitments: Inclusive partnerships; Transparency
8
Busan HLF-4: Incorporating aid effectiveness and
development effectiveness
 Commitments for
Effectiveness of Development
Cooperation:
 Ownership, Results and
Accountability
 Transparent and
Responsible Cooperation
 Sustainable Development
in Situations of Conflict and
Fragility
 Strengthening Resilience
and Reducing Vulnerability
 Commitments for Effective
Development:
 South-South
Cooperation &
Triangular Cooperation
 Private Sector and
Development
 Combating Corruption
and Illicit Flows
 Climate Change Finance
9
 Focus shifts from technical aid effectiveness towards new
development effectiveness agenda
 Development effectiveness is a progressively more
ambitious agenda, more complex, and can create
difficulties in operationalization and evaluation
 Concerns about the unfinished business of Paris and Accra
 Global Partnership for Effective Development
Cooperation as the New Framework is launched (June
2012)
10
III. New Global Partnership (June 2012- )
1. Governance
Ministerial Meeting
Agenda &
Priorities
Support
Tasks &
Assignments
Steering Committee
Guidance
Secretariat:
OECD/
UNDP
Support
(1) Ministerial Meeting
 Reviews progress in implementing Busan commitments
 Meets every 18-24 months, alternating back-to-back with UNCDF (UN
Capital Development Fund) and OECD DAC High Level Meetings
(2) Steering Committee
 Steers the work of the ministerial meeting including strategic priorities
and agenda
 Acts as Ambassadors of Global Partnership to other
international/regional processes
 3 Co-Chairs and 15 Steering Committee Members
11
(3) Secretariat: OECD & UNDP
 UNDP will partner with OECD to support the new
framework
UNDP newly joined the secretariat for the new framework
 Helps strengthen legitimacy of the HLF process and the new
framework for universal rules and norms
 Division of labor:
OECD: Analytical expertise
UNDP: Brings breadth based on international development work in
the field

12
(4) Monitoring Indicators and Process
 Global Monitoring of the Busan Partnership



Participation of South-South providers in the monitoring
framework is voluntary
10 Indicators: Efforts to reduce burden associated with collecting
data
 Indicators on civil society, private sector, and gender equality newly
introduced
 Indicators on civil society & private sector to be further discussed
and detailed definitions and measurement issues to be finalized by
late 2012 (Hong 2012)
Target Year: 2015
13
Comparison of HLF Principles
Paris Principle
HLF-4 Shared
Principles
HLF-4 Commitments for
Effective DC
HLF-4 Commitments for
Effective Development
HLF-4 Indicators for
Monitoring
Ownership
Ownership
Ownership, Results and
Accountability
South-South and
Triangular Cooperation
Results
Alignment
Focus on Results
Transparent and
Responsible
Cooperation
Private Sector and
Development
Civil Society
Harmonization
Inclusive
Development
Partnerships
Sustainable
Development in Conflict
and Fragile Situations
Combating Corruption
and Illicit Flows
Private Sector
Managing for
Results
Transparency and
Accountability
Resilience and Reducing
Vulnerability
Climate Change Finance
Transparency
Mutual
Accountability
Predictability
Parliamentary Scrutiny
Mutual Accountability
Gender Equality
Effective Institutions Using developing
countries’ system
Aid Untying
14
2. Remaining Challenges
(1) “Loose alliance” in order to encourage participation of
emerging donors
 “Differentiated commitments” to encourage South-South
partners’ participation in the new framework
 Reduce commitments to common principles as “voluntary” for
South-South Cooperation of BRICS
(2) Need to ensure monitoring of implementation
(3) Follow-up Process
 Impact of the Busan Partnership depends on follow-up
 Ensure that monitoring indicators are applied to traditional
donors and gradually extended to other HLF-4 stakeholders
(Oxfam 2012)
15
IV. South Korea’s Challenges as an
Emerging Donor
1. Leadership in the Steering Committee
 Further strengthen South-South partners’ political commitment
Contributed to active participation of South-South partners in the Busan
Partnership
 Bridging Role between traditional and emerging donors

 Steering Committee
South Korea is 1 of 3 representatives of Providers of Development Cooperation
Co-Chairs (Ministerial Level):




Ms. Armida Alisjahbana, Minister of State for National Development Planning, Indonesia
Ms. Justine Greening, Secretary of State for International Development, U.K.
Ms. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Minister of Finance, Nigeria
Steering

Committee Members (Senior Level):
Representatives of Recipients (5), Recipient and Providers (1), Providers (3) of
Development Cooperation, Private Sector (1), Parliamentarians (1), Civil Society (1),
Multilateral Development Banks(1) , UNDP/UNDG (1), and OECD/DAC (1)
16
Steering Committee Members
Recipients (5)
Mr. Brahim Adoum Bachar, Secretary General, Ministry of Economy and Planning
Chad
Mr. Luis Fernando Carrera Castro, Secretary for Planning and Programming, Presidency
Guatemala
Mr. Iqbal Mahmood, Senior Secretary, Ministry of Finance
Bangladesh
Ms. Noumea Simi, Assistant Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of Finance
Samoa
Mr. Helder da Costa, Director of the International Secretariat of the G7+, Ministry of Finance
Timor-Leste
Recipients &
Providers (1)
Mr. Luis Olivera, Executive Director, Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI)
Peru
Providers (3)
Mr. Gustavo Martin Prada, Director
EC
Ms. Enna Park, Director General for Development Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Trade
South Korea
Mr. Donald Steinberg, Deputy Administrator, US Agency for International Development
U.S.
Private Sector (1)
John Sullivan, Center for International Private Enterprise
Parliamentarians (1)
Mr. Martin Chungong, Director, Division of Programmes, Inter-Parliamentary Union
Civil Society (1)
Ms. Mayra Moro-Coco, BetterAid
Multilateral
Development Banks (1)
Ms. Sophie Sirtaine, Director, Corporate Reform and Strategy, Operations Policy and Country
Services, World Bank
UNDP/UNDG(1)
Ms. Sigrid Kaag, Assistant Secretary General and Assistant Administrator,
Bureau for External Relations and Advocacy, UNDP
OECD/DAC (1)
Mr. Brian Atwood, Chair, Development Assistance Committee, OECD
17
2. Develop National Strategy for Global Partnership
Reform policies and processes for development
cooperation
More coherent and harmonized approach based on
agreement by diverse actors
18
3. Strengthen Political Support for ODA
Strong political commitment of the new President (2013-)
Reaffirmation of goals of South Korea’s ODA: Volume and
Global leadership
Continued improvement of the Aid System
Increase participation and involvement of CSOs
Human resource building at home: Education and training
of development cooperation experts
19
V. Asian Approaches to Development
Cooperation
1. Asian Development
1) Rapid Economic Development
• Developmental State
• Education
• Foreign aid utilized for domestic institution and human
capacity development  Domestic Capability
Development
20
2) Key institutions of Japan, South Korea, China
Period of Rapid
Industrialization
Key
Institutions
Japan
South Korea
China
1945-1974
1961-1980
1978-1992
Government
(Developmental
State)
Ministry of Int’l Trade and
Industry (MITI)
Economic
Planning
Board (EPB)
National
Development
and Reform
Commission
(NDRC)
Local Capital
Zaibatsu, Keiretsu
Chaebol
State-owned enterprises
(SOEs)
Foreign Capital
•ODA
•Trade
•ODA
•Trade
•ODA
•FDI
•Trade
21
2. Asian Development Cooperation
1) Transition from aid recipient to donor
2) Regional Development: Use ODA for building regional
economic relationship and development in Asia
3) ODA in Comprehensive Development: ODA as part of
a larger economic development stimulus package
including foreign direct investment (FDI) and trade
 “Asian Solutions to Asian Problems”
22
Asian Cooperation:
Overview of ODA, Trade and FDI Flows of Japan, South Korea
and China (2011)
ODA
Trade
FDI
Japan
South Korea
China
Australia
Total gross
disbursements
(USD million)
10,831.4
1,324.6
41.5
4982.9
Asia share (%)
22.5
47.4
32.8
33.4
Total volume
(USD million)
1,678,564
1,079,627
3,641,865
565,273
Asia share (%)*
(Export vs. Import)
18.4 vs. 20.6
12.4 vs. 12.6
42.4 vs. 40.8
-
Total outward flow
(USD million)
114,353
20,355
65,177
12,655
34.8
59.5
-
-29.3**
Asia share (%)
Source: ODA Gross Disbursements- International Development Statistics; Chinese ODA – 2011 China’s White Paper on Foreign
Aid.
Trade- World Bank.
FDI- United Nations Conference on Trade and Development FDI Statistics; OECD Statistics for Asia share.
* Asia share includes trade from and to member countries of ASEAN +3. ** Asia’s inflow of FDI is greater than its outflow.
23
3. Asia’s Post 2015 Development Challenges
1) Development Cooperation in Post-War and Conflict Context
Countries in fragile situations face triple challenges of human insecurity,
underdevelopment and poverty
Human (in)security, development, and poverty are closely connected and
mutually reinforcing


•
•
Conflict is an important cause that has led to increase in poverty … [and] affects
well-being through displacement of people from their home and livelihoods as
refugees and into poverty (MDG Report, 2008)
Fragile states are caught in a vicious cycle of failed government, persistent poverty,
and conflict (Collier, 2007)
 Bridging security and development in development cooperation:
Poverty reduction and development in the context of fragile security
and post-conflict require different goals and strategies.
2) Humanitarian Assistance and Development Cooperation

Short-term humanitarian assistance and long-term development
cooperation have not been brought together in the field.

However, disasters have disproportionately affected the least
developed and developing countries. Meeting the MDGs is severely
challenged in many countries by losses from manmade and natural
disasters (UNDP, 2004).

Short-term disasters exacerbate existing poverty and insecurity 
They become long-term poverty and insecurity cases.
 Bridging the divide between short-term humanitarian assistance and
long-term development cooperation is critical in the Post 2015 world.
3) Human Capacity Development and Empowerment
 Gender inequality remains a challenge
 Improvements in gender development (education, employment) have
not led to gender empowerment
 Concerted efforts are needed to improve gender empowerment for
sustainable development and poverty reduction to be: “fair, smart, and
transformative of societies” (Faust, 2013).
Post 2015 Development Cooperation:
Domestic capability development (education + employment +
empowerment)  Sustainable development
26
27