Aid E ffectiveness : From Paris 2005 to Paris 2012

1. AidEffectiveness: From Paris 2005 to Paris 2012 The Reform oftheAidCooperationArchitecture- andtheroleofCivil Society Peter Lanzet, BfdW, forthefirst Faith BasedDevelolpmentOrganisationsworkshop on 25./27.6.2013 in Geneva

2. Paris 2012 Global Partnership Busan 2011 HLF IV withone CSO SteeringCommitteemember 2008 Accra HLF III Official Process Timeline 2005 Paris 2003 Rom 1999 Marrakesh CSO voiceandvote in Busan CSO- Conference preceding Accra Civil Society 17 NGOs witnessed Paris 2007 Nairobi: BetterAidconstituted BetterAid in Working Party on AidEffectiveness 2012 OF/BA mergeto CPDE Istanbul, Siem Reap, 100 Consultations 2008 Ottawa/Paris: Open Forum constituted

3. Paris 2005, Accra 2008AidEffectiveness vs. Development Effectiveness Development effectiveness Aid De-Fragmentation Value for money- approach South South Cooperation Partnership approach CSOs Fragile countries Results and Accountability Conditionality Predictability Ownership Alignment Harmonisation Managing for Results Mutual Accountability New Thinking in Accra Areas of CSO influence in ACCRA

4. Civil Society Achievements in Busan? WhatBetterAid/Open Forum wanted WhatBA/OF achieved • Finish Paris/Accra Agenda (2 Speed) • Human Rightsare in theDocument but onlyregarding CSOs • EnablingEnvironmnentin theDocument but not strong • CSOs form partof national Domocratic Ownership • Civil Society ispartofthenew Global PartnershipforEffectiveCooperation in Development

5. …. andResults: Monitoring Framework and 10 indicatorswithtargetsfor 2015 Results Civil society Private sector Transparency Predictability Aid is on budgets Mutual accountability Gender equality and women’s empowerment Effective institutions 10. Aid is untied Narrowor large mandate (i.e. Post 2015)?? The Building Blocks BusanOutcomes OECD DAC lost, BRICS won, donors happy Commitment to “unfinished business” Not poverty reduction and MDGs but economic growth, strong results orientation, private sector Still focus on development cooperation and not on development as such, despite talking about development effectiveness, pointing out trade, pledging to leverage ODA in the financial markets. Recognizing actors as diverse as Civil Society or China as part of one framework of „common principles, shared goals but different commitments“ - therefore weak on Human Rights or on definite indicators and time frames. For Civil Society, Busan marks its graduation as a global development actor

6. HowCivil Society organized • Open Forum • Founded 2008 in Ottawa • Worked outside thefencetowork on Civil Society Development Effectiveness • Developed Istanbul PrinciplesandSiem Reap Framework, etc. • Maintainedwebsitecommunication • Coordinatedover 100 national and regional workshops • Mergedwiththe CPDE BetterAid Foundedat WSF 2007 in Naiorbi, coregroupofOrganisations Expandedinto 32 global networksandorganizationstil 2011 Workedinsidethefence Contributednumerouspolicypapersandpublications Organized email participationworldwide Mergedthe CPDE

7. GPEDC TheStructure of the Civil Society Partnership on DevelopmentEffectiveness 50 Member Global Council, 4 form FBO Independent AccountabilityCommittee 16 Member Coordination Committee 4 Co -Chairs Global level Regional level Secretariat Regional Representatives of Regions Representatives of SectorConstitutencies Subregional/ SectoralCPDE-Centres Sub-regionallevel Multistakeholder Process National level CSOPlat-form NGOs Government Partner-shipDonors FBO Labor Private Sector Think Tanks

8. Central issues Challengesforthe global Partnership on Effective Development Cooperation G20 model ofdevelopmentisdetrimentaltoBusan, Busanunnecessary GP not well established, canbe sidelinedbydonors (seestructure) Not well known, is not a fullyrespectedplayer in aidarcitecture, yetthisiswhatit was madefor Must find recognitionforimplementing post 2015, i.e. recognitionfor larger mandate ForCivilSociety Partnership on Development Effectiveness Making CPDE effectctive in GP Making CPDE effectivelocalto global Advocating: EnablingEnvironment Human Rights DevelopmentEffectiveness Post-2015, Sufficiency Claimate Change Existence outside Global Partnership?

9. Why FBOs shouldstrengthenthe Global PartnershipApproach Itistheonly global processwith CSOs asmembers (partnershipapproach) Itis a platformfor CSO protest on enablingenvironment Has a Building Block links in whichCivil Society cangetinvolved Reference toBusanshouldprotectandadvance national Civil Society (democraticaccountability/enablingenvironment) As longas UN isweakand not givingroleto CSOs

10. CSOs and theimplementation of the Busan principles: National Level • Building national stakeholder platforms • Participatingin and monitoring of Development (Cooperation) PolicyFormulation, canbesectoral, at local, districtornatioallevel • Watchdogroleforgrants and loanscontracting in OfficialDev. Coop • Subsidiaryprogram and projectimplementation • Participating in and monitoringcountryledresults and acoountabilityframeworks • Countrydonorcoordinationplatforms • Parliamentarybudget and otherauditprocesses CSOsaremembershipbased, adcocacybasedorservice delivery based. Thecanperform different roles at their different levels of capacity:

11. CSOs and theimplementation of the Busan priciples, regional, sub-regional CSOsactive at thislevelneed to havethecredibility and theauthoriy to interactwithstate and interstategovernmentactorsboth on partnership as well as on consultativebasis. Theyneed to monitorevents at thestatelevel and makingwrongdevelopmentsknown (Aid watch, EnablingEnvironment, Regional initiatives) Establishconnectionsbetween national and global levels.

12. CSOs and theimplementation of the Busan priciples: Global InteractwithGPEDE on thebasis of thesteeringcommitteeseat Ensurerealization of commitments strengthen GPEDC based on CSO- perspectives Support and monitor UNDP/OECD-DAC Implement and monitorCPDEpriorityplans, i.e. enablingenvironment, democraticownership, post 2015, climatefinance, etc.