Memorandum submitted by World Vision
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Accra High level Forum on aid effectiveness
in September, provides an opportunity to set out an agenda for
action to accelerate progress on the commitments made in the Paris
Declaration. World Vision welcomes the accompanying pre-Accra
consultation processes with civil society. However, it is clear
that the Paris Declaration by itself is not a panacea for poverty
reduction. World Vision believes that aid effectiveness should
be measured in terms of achieving rights, and reducing poverty,
inequality and injustice, particularly for the most vulnerable.
As we move forward, linking the implementation of Paris Declaration
to these key development goals puts the interests and rights of
poor and marginalized people at the centre of the aid effectiveness
agenda.
At present it is clear that uncoordinated donor
practice results in time-consuming and costly operations for already
overstretched developing country government staff. Coordination
is even more necessary in fragile states where evidence suggests
that clustering around selected focus areas can create gaps in
the provision for other critical needs. This incoherence seriously
undermines the effectiveness of development aid programmes. While
there are attempts to improve harmonisation, the EU Code of Conduct
on Division of Labour, for example, is voluntary and self-policing.
It should be promoted and monitored to ensure greater stability
and predictability of aid flows.
World Vision believes that ownership is an important
cornerstone for development—unless countries are able to
decide and direct their own development paths, development will
fail to be inclusive, sustainable or effective. Country ownership
is not achieved simply by recipient governments developing national
poverty reduction policies. It also relies on the meaningful participation
of citizens, including children and the historically marginalized,
in the development, implementation and monitoring of those policies,
as a key entitlement. However, while there has been a marked improvement
in the level of civil society participation in national planning
and budgeting processes (including the Medium Term Expenditure
Framework process), the influence of civil society in recipient
countries remains at best minimal, and in some cases non-existent,
in major government donor aid discussions. Failure to address
civil society capacity and engagement could undermine any efforts
to increase transparency and accountability of central, state
and local governments and exacerbate imbalances between the branches
of government and/or between central and state/local governments.
For aid to flow, decentralisation is important,
including fiscal decentralisation—a significant challenge
for recipient governments. Decentralisation ensures that resources
and policy implementation reaches the furthest and most needy
locations, when supported with capacity enhancement at the lower
development levels. Weaknesses and constraints of government capability
and performance at the district level can undermine progress of
decentralisation, putting at risk the effective use of resources.
As such, support to development that reaches the most vulnerable
children and the communities in which they live, requires support
to capacity development and institutional reforms for decentralisation.
INTRODUCTION
1. World Vision is a Christian relief, development
and advocacy organization, dedicated to working with children,
families and communities in nearly 100 countries to overcome poverty
and injustice. Motivated by our Christian faith, World Vision
is dedicated to working with the world's most vulnerable people,
and serves all people, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity
or gender.
2. The organization is responding to this
inquiry because development aid continues to be a key instrument
for lifting people out of poverty, and the organization works
with others including the UK Aid Network to advocate for better
aid, allocated and delivered efficiently and effectively.
3. In 2006, the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries coordinated a baseline
survey of donor and recipient country performance as a way to
monitor progress against the targets of the Paris Declaration[97].
Civil society has also been active, both in the North and in the
South, monitoring the delivery and use of aid resources to ensure
its effectiveness. To date, indications are that both donors and
recipients have a long road ahead to meet the promises made in
Paris in 2005. This year provides a potential opportunity, through
the Accra High level Forum on aid effectiveness in September,
to set out an agenda for action to accelerate progress on the
commitments made in Paris. World Vision recognises the opportunity
this provides and welcomes the accompanying pre-Accra consultation
processes with civil society.
4. Based on our policy analysis and field
experience in several countries, we are pleased to respond to
this consultation on coordination for aid effectiveness. World
Vision underscores the point that aid is not just about the numbers,
but its delivery to achieve decent livelihoods for the billions
deprived of basic rights every day.
HOW DONORS
SEEK TO
APPLY THE
PARIS DECLARATION
AND TO
CO -ORDINATE
THEIR AID PROGRAMMES
IN TERMS
OF OBJECTIVES
AND PRIORITIES
5. One of the indicators in the OECD survey
assessed the extent to which donor missions have been coordinated.
Effective coordination cuts transaction costs and reduces bureaucratic
demands on governments. Disappointingly, the 2006 OECD survey
reveals that only 18% of all missions across the surveyed countries
are conducted jointly.[98]
This is an example of uncoordinated donor practices that can result
in time consuming and costly operations for already overstretched
developing country government staff. Donor countries should increase
efforts towards more unified and coordinated approaches for aid
support.
6. In Sudan, pooled funding mechanisms such
as the Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF), managed by the World Bank,
is designed to provide the main funding for recovery and development
in Southern Sudan, and to prioritise the building of capacity
of the Government of Southern Sudan. In the North, it is targeted
towards the war-affected areas. Though the MDTF was advertised
to aid recovery and development, in reality it has focused on
central government capacity-building and technical assistance,
supporting large scale, centrally-planned programmes. In addition,
DFID's own Conflict and Humanitarian Fund has continued to be
the main funding mechanism for Sudan three years after the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement was signed. This has made recovery and development
inside Southern Sudan more constrained due to short and unpredictable
funding allocations.
7. While donor coordination is important,
clustering around selected focus areas can create gaps in the
provision for other critical needs. For instance, a large gap
has been left within Sudan between humanitarian funding for immediate
needs and long-term recovery and development funding. "One
of the challenges that confront the aid community and governments
in Sudan is finding a balance between the country's needs and
a mix of instruments and mechanisms that work together to address
those needs; across the humanitarian, recovery and development
phases. Existing recovery tools are not yet attuned to reach their
desired results. Donors, governments and implementing partners
such as NGOs and the UN continue to search for ways to improve
the combined effect of their contributions to meet the needs of
the people of Sudan."[99]
Recommendations
— Donor countries should increase efforts
towards more unified and coordinated approaches for aid support.
— Coordination is even more required
in countries in situation of fragility. All funding should be
in line with the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) principles[100]
to ensure that long term recovery and development foster peace
and prevention as well as reconstruction.
OWNERSHIP: THE
ROLE OF
RECIPIENT COUNTRIES
IN MANAGING
AID FLOWS,
ARTICULATING THEIR
NEEDS AND
FACILITATING CO
-ORDINATION
8. Country ownership is summarized under
the Paris Principles as meaning "partner countries exercise
effective leadership over their development policies, and strategies
and co-ordinate development actions." Country ownership is
not achieved simply by the development of national policies by
governments. It also relies on the meaningful participation of
citizens, including children, in the development, implementation
and monitoring of those policies, as a key entitlement. If citizens
do not participate, then policies will not be "owned",
and the aid delivered through them will not necessarily meet citizen
needs and result in poverty reduction. True ownership exists when
engagement in policy and program development becomes the fertile
ground for citizens to demand their rights and the services that
reflect the realization of those rights. However, what is lacking
is how donor and partner government are going to ensure that.
9. World Vision believes that ownership
is an important cornerstone for development—unless countries
are able to decide and direct their own development paths, development
will fail to be inclusive, sustainable or effective.
Articulating needs
10. It is critical that aid is targeted
towards well-articulated national development plans that capture
the multidimensional nature of poverty. From the cycle of Poverty
Reduction Strategies (PRS), many developing countries have internalised
the concept of developing holistic PRSs or National Development
Plans (NDPs). Despite this, many of the processes of developing
these strategies are not yet perfect, often leaving out key actors
such as parliamentarians or engaging them on an ad hoc basis by
"consulting" rather than "institutionalising"
their participation[101].
Adopting institutionalised frameworks for civil society participation
could contribute to increased effective influence of civil society
who in turn should bring to the table the marginalized.
11. Further, strengthening local ownership
of the development agenda requires support that allows the government
to spend according to its priorities as outlined in PRSs or NDPs.
To do this, donor governments are increasingly channelling their
support through national budgets. For this support to be effective,
national budgets and Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks need to
be closely aligned to corresponding PRSs. The first generation
PRSs were not as closely aligned to national budgets as the second
generation, which have made more explicit links with the budgets[102].
There should be a strengthening of linkages of the PRSs/NDPs to
national resource envelopes.
12. The recommendations in paragraph 10
and 11are in line with the 2006 OECD report that identifies six
priority areas, including that partner countries need to deepen
their ownership of the development process, including by engaging
their citizens and parliament and linking development strategies
more effectively to budgets.
Managing Aid Flows
13. The management of aid flows, especially
at country level requires sound and well functioning financial
management systems. Governments should ensure that these are set
up and aid donors should be ready to provide technical and financial
support towards this. Strong financial systems should not be limited
to oversight functions but include other key elements such as
aid negotiation capacities to help level the negotiation capacities
between donors and recipient governments. This is particularly
important in the face of increased donor coordination.
14. For aid to flow, decentralisation is
important, including fiscal decentralisation, which could be challenging
for governments to undertake. Decentralisation ensures that resources
and policy implementation flows to the furthest and most needy
locations when supported with capacity enhancement at the lower
development levels. World Vision evidence, presented in our submission
to DFID's Country Assistance Plan consultation for Mozambique,[103]
reveals that weaknesses and constraints of government capability
and performance at the district level can undermine progress of
decentralisation, putting at risk the effective use of resources.
As such, support to development where people are requires support
to capacity development and institutional reforms for decentralisation.
Democratic Ownership
15. Democratic ownership implies real governance,
information sharing, empowerment, participatory approaches, and
the legitimate voice and active participation from the communities
(including the vulnerable and children). It implies government
responsiveness and accountability to its citizens. At the community
level World Vision believes that CSOs play an important role in
educating and empowering citizens to hold their governments accountable
for program and policy initiatives, through increasing citizen
awareness, participation and interaction with local leaders and
government officials, independent budget monitoring and community
based performance monitoring. For example, the DFID Country Governance
Analysis suggests that accountability is the most fragile component
of governance in Malawi. It is commendable that DFID plans to
build on current funding to create a more accountable and responsive
government, including through support to civil society organisations[104].
Aid should support the creation of political space for dialogue
between the national and local governments; civil society; parliament;
donors and the private sector on the pace and progress towards
meeting development targets. This also provides the much-needed
environment for citizens to raise issues arising from Community
Based Performance Monitoring or other social accountability tools
to monitor how aid has been spent.
16. As ownership is strengthened with the
meaningful participation of citizens in various processes, it
is important to note that while there has been a marked improvement
in the level and extent of civil society participation in the
national planning and budgeting processes (including the MTEF[105]
process), civil society influence remains at best minimal and
in some cases non-existent in major government donor aid discussions.
For instance, Zambian civil society has been calling for more
transparency and improved information flow around the government-donor
aid discussions such as the Joint Assistant Strategy processes,
IMF negotiation processes with the PRGF, and the Performance Assessment
Framework (PAF) for the PRBS process[106].
17. Principles and subsequent funding must
address this challenge and include a clear and achievable plan
for increasing the capacity and ability of national Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGO) to contribute to negotiation processes. Failure
to address civil society capacity and engagement could undermine
any efforts to increase transparency and accountability of central,
state and local governments and exacerbate imbalances between
the branches of government and/or between central and state/local
governments.
Recommendations
— Aid donors should support strengthening
of processes, particularly those aimed at broadening local stakeholder
engagement—especially the historically marginalized, to
enhance local ownership of development processes.
— Donors should propose more support
to the government in enhancing communication flows to its partners
and even down to its local administrative authorities if the decentralization
processes are to be efficient and transparent.
— Moreover, donors should recognise
the role of non-governmental organisations' activity in implementation
at the district and local levels. This is more important because
current experiences of NGOs in government outsourcing programmes
reveal that the government lacks the technical capacity to manage
the partnerships financially and institutionally.
— Adopting institutionalised frameworks
for civil society participation could contribute to increased
effective influence of civil society who in turn should bring
to the table the marginalized.
— There should be a strengthening of
linkages of the PRSs/NDPs to national resource envelopes.
— Strong financial systems should not
be limited to oversight functions but include other key elements
such as aid negotiation capacities to help level the negotiation
capacities between donors and recipient governments.
THE BENEFITS
AND POTENTIAL
DIFFICULTIES OF
GREATER CO
-ORDINATION: THE
IMPACT ON
RECIPIENT AND
DONOR COUNTRIES
18. The benefits of co ordination are significant
to both donors and recipients. First, donor coordination requires
those donors that participate to align their priorities, and then
pursue common and strategic objectives with the recipient country.
The emphasis on funding in line with government priorities is
an important donor priority, and the overall objective to see
programmes handed over to national, state or local levels is essential
to the development of a country. However, this emphasis has to
take into account the ability and willingness of a government
to prioritise recovery or development.
19. Evidence shared by World Vision in Sudan
suggests that the annual consortium meeting with donors and local
government held to discuss future funding priorities and pledges
by the international community including donors and local government,
has consistently helped to keep the needs of those in Sudan high
on the agenda. These consortium meetings are convened in conjunction
with the Sudanese government to ensure that funding is underpinning
the priorities and efforts of the Sudanese Government.
20. Disappointingly, there has been little
coordination for non-state actors. Experiences shared by Zambian
civil society reveal that though donors are increasing efforts
to harmonise their aid policies and actions in support of the
national development plan, there still remains a lack of corresponding
harmonized support to civil society to effectively enable and
provide a formidable social-political entity to check and hold
government accountable[107].
Zambian civil society is therefore recommending that donors should
promote a "civil society budget support" approach to
enable and build corresponding capacity in civil society to engage
in Joint Assistant Strategies and other processes, including monitoring
donor commitments to Paris Declaration targets.[108]
Recommendations
— Donors should strengthen recipient
government negotiating capacity and ability to effectively scrutinize
policy options.
— Donors should promote funding for
civil society to enable them to participate in policy discussions
around prioritization and allocation of aid in country.
HOW BILATERAL
AND MULTILATERAL
AID INCLUDING
WITHIN THE
EU (MEMBER STATES
AND EC AID),
CAN BE
BETTER ALIGNED
AND COORDINATED
21. The EU has been providing a framework
for members states to operate within, even though some new states
are not yet donors. The UK government has in recent years allocated
most of its multilateral aid through the European Commission,
almost double what is allocated to the World Bank[109].
22. Incoherent donor action seriously undermines
the effectiveness of development aid programmes. The EU Code of
Conduct on Division of Labour[110]
is a good attempt towards better coordination among different
donors. The EU Code of Conduct on Division of Labour is welcome
in so far as it will reduce the number of donors to whom each
partner country will have to relate. The EU and its member states
are also increasingly moving for more government-to-government
type of aid, such as poverty reduction budget support or sectoral
budget support. For example, the French government is keener to
use this funding mechanism (1% French ODA). By contrast in 2006-07
budget support represented 18% of DIFD total bilateral aid programme.
Better coordination and alignment of bilateral and multilateral
aid will be one the main development priorities under the French
Presidency of the European Union. Nonetheless, World Vision is
concerned that the Code is voluntary and self-policing. It should
be promoted and monitored and through that, ensure greater stability
and predictability of aid flows. The EU Code of Conduct on Division
of Labour should be promoted and monitored across Europe and among
multilateral donors.
23. Aid is often accompanied by lack of
transparency and openness. There are wide variations in the degree
to which donors report in advance how much aid they intend to
disburse, and after how much they have disbursed and on what terms.
This makes it difficult for recipient governments to budget properly,
and for CSOs, women's organisations and citizens to scrutinise
budgeting processes. Appropriate safeguards must be put in place
to tackle the problem of aid volatility. In addition, increased
harmonisation must not result in increased conditionality and
prescriptions on economic policy reforms.
Recommendations
— Donors, including DFID and the EU
member states should make multi-year aid commitments based on
clear and transparent criteria, and should deliver those commitments
on schedule, in a transparent manner.
— The European Union has the potential
to lead "by example" among other EU member states. However,
EU's best practices should need to be escalated.
— Bilateral and multilateral donors
must recognise that their activities can undermine democratic
ownership, particularly through policy conditionality.
NEXT STEPS
FOR THE
PARIS DECLARATION
AND FOR
AID EFFECTIVENESS
24. The Paris Declaration addresses concerns
about the management and effective delivery of aid, but it fails
to recognise that development encompasses political, economic
and social issues and aid only partially address them. For aid
to be effective, it should facilitate a process whereby people
living in poverty are empowered to understand, claim and realise
their human rights. Linking the implementation of the Paris Declaration
to the realization of human rights should put the interests of
the poor and the marginalized people at the centre of the aid
effectiveness agenda.
25. The DAC High Level Forum taking place
in Accra next September presents an opportunity to deepen the
current aid effectiveness agenda by explicitly addressing its
relevance to these broader development goals. Deepening aid effectiveness
in the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA) requires recognition by all
stakeholders that the modalities and partnerships of aid must
be explicitly coherent with, and accountable to United Nations
goals to achieve progress in poverty reduction, gender equality
and human rights. Donors must be accountable and take responsibility
for their actions, while all governments must spare no effort
to meet their obligations to provide basic rights for their citizens.
26. World Vision has been actively engaged
in many civil society events in the run up the DAC High Level
Forum in September 2008. As part of larger civil society networks
and coalitions, we will build on our own dialogue and processes
to broaden and deepen the process so that it reflects both development
and aid effectiveness. We will engage in the processes leading
up to September 2008 Accra High Level Forum, take our recommendations
to Forum, and beyond to 2011 when the Paris Declaration will be
reviewed.
Recommendations
— World Vision believes that aid effectiveness
should be measured in terms of achieving rights, and reducing
poverty, inequality and injustice, particularly for the most vulnerable.
Linking the implementation of Paris Declaration to these key development
goals puts the interests and rights of poor and marginalized people
at the centre of the aid effectiveness agenda.
— The role of Civil Society Organisations
should be recognised development actors in their own right working
for the eradication of poverty. Further, harmonization should
not result in the intrumentalization of CSOs. Our key value is
in our independence and our ability to be responsive to the needs
communities.
February 2008
SUMMARY OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
— Donor countries should increase efforts
towards more unified and coordinated approaches for aid support.
— Coordination is even more required
in countries in situation of fragility. All funding should be
in line with the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) principles
to ensure that long term recovery and development foster peace
and prevention as well as reconstruction.
— Donors should propose more support
to the government in enhancing communication flows to its partners
and even down to its local administrative authorities if the decentralization
processes are to be efficient and transparent.
— Moreover, donors should recognise
the role of Non-governmental Organisations activity in implementation
at the district and local levels. This is more important because
current experiences of NGOs in government outsourcing programmes
reveal that the government lacks the technical capacity to manage
the partnerships financially and institutionally.
— There should be a strengthening of
linkages of the PRSs/NDPs to national resource envelopes.
— Strong financial systems should not
be limited to oversight functions but include other key elements
such as aid negotiation capacities to help level the negotiation
capacities between donors and recipient governments.
— Donors should strengthen recipient
government negotiating capacity and ability to effectively scrutinise
policy options.
— Donors should also promote funding
for civil society to enable them to participate in policy discussions
around prioritization and allocation of aid in country.
— The European Union has the potential
to lead "by example" among other EU donors.
— EU donors must recognise that their
activities can undermine democratic ownership, particularly through
policy conditionality.
— Donors, including DFID and the EU
member states should make multi-year aid commitments based on
clear and transparent criteria, and should deliver those commitments
on schedule, in a transparent manner.
— World Vision believes that aid effectiveness
should be measured of achieving rights, and reducing poverty,
inequality and injustice, particularly for the most vulnerable.
Linking the implementation of Paris Declaration to these key development
goals puts the interests and rights of poor and marginalized people
at the centre of the aid effectiveness agenda.
— The role of Civil Society Organisations
should be recognised development actors in their own right working
for the eradication of poverty. Further, harmonization should
not result in the intrumentalization of CSOs. Our key value is
in our independence and our ability to be responsive to the needs
communities.
97 2006 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration
http://www.oecd.org/document/20/0,3343,en_2649_15577209_38521876_1_1_1_1,00.html Back
98
Eurodad brief analysis of OECD Survey on Monitoring the Paris
Declaration-2007-06-11
http://www.eurodad.org/aid/article.aspx?id=124&item=01358 Back
99
Notes from workshop in Sudan in October 2007 Back
100
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/45/38368714.pdf Back
101
World Vision, "Poverty Reductions: Are these strategies working?"
June 2005 Back
102
2008, World Bank, Minding the Gaps Back
103
http://www.worldvision.org.uk/upload/pdf/WV_Submission_on_DFID_Mozambique_CAP_2007.pdf Back
104
http://www.worldvision.org.uk/upload/pdf/DFID_Malawi_Country_Assistance_Plan_Consultation_Oct_2007.pdf Back
105
MTEF is the Medium Term Expenditure Framework Back
106
2007, Irish Aid, OECD and Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs-notes
from workshop on development effectiveness in practice. Back
107
2007, Irish Aid, OECD and Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs-Notes
from workshop on development effectiveness in practice. Back
108
Ibid. Back
109
DFID Statistics on International Development: 2007 Edition http://www.dfid.gov.uk/aboutdfid/statistics.asp Back
110
http://www.ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/michel/Policy/key_documents/docs/COMM_PDF_COM_2007_0072_F_EN_ACTE.pdf Back
|
