The International Framework of Aid and Development Effectiveness

1. The International Framework of Aid and Development Effectiveness Karin Fällman, Sida 13 February 2014

2. Presentation • The Aid and DevelopmentAffectiveness Agenda • Briefhistory • The Busan Process and the Busan PartnershipDocument/GPEDC • The Implementation of GPEDC • Framework • Review of progress

3. The Declarations • HLF-1: Rome 2003 • HLF-2: Paris 2005 • HLF-3: Accra 2008 • CSO EE • CSO DEFF • HLF-4: Busan 2011

4. Preps for HLF-4 Busan • Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment • Review of Evidence of Progress • Key Messages • Communication Strategy – inclusion into HLF-4 and BpD • CSOs via OF/BA • Reports of Progress • CSO Messages • Communication Strategy – inclusion into HLF-4 and BpD • CSO Sherpa for Busan – a seat at the negotiation table

5. CSO Enabling Environment • Multi-dimensional notion incl. various elements of a country’s governance • Task Team’s definition (UNSR, ICNL et.al.): • Legal Framework: Keepingwithexisting international HR commitments • Policy and Practice: Systematic and inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogue fora • Aid Effective Donor CSO Support

6. The Busan PartnershipDocument TT and CSO messages reflected primarily in §22 on the role of CSOs and §11 and §12 on democratic ownership: • Recognition of CSOs as independent development actors • Provision of an enabling environment for CSOs • Recognition of CSOs’ efforts to enhance their dev. eff. • Importance of MSD (also at the core of BpD’sproposal for a “new, inclusive and representative Global Partnership for Effective Development co-operation...that embraces diversity”)

7. ConcernsregardingBpD’sclarity and consistency with regard to “democratic ownership” BpDparagraphexamples: • §11: “Partnerships for development can only succeed if they are led by developing countries…” • § 18: “transparent, country-led and country-level results frameworks and platforms will be adopted as a common tool among all concerned actors” Risks: • Requirement for all non-state actors to align with one set of national development plans or results frameworks • A “one results framework” approach could stifle the right of initiative of non-state actors

8. GPEDC • Structure: • Three Co-chairs • Steering Committee incl. CSO-rep. • OEDC/DAC – UNDP support secretariat; • Monitoring framework with 10 indicators, incl. CSO EE • Uneven progress • Four SC meetings; first HLM in Mexico (April 2014) • Progress on implementing the Busan commitments • Tax and domestic resource mobilisation • MICs and effective development co-operation • Knowledge sharing, South-South and triangular co-operation • The private sector and effective development co-operation

9. Task Team’s Review of Evidence on implementation ofBpD 1(2) • Democratic ownership and inclusive development partnerships • MSD effective and on the rise • Ownership seen as alignment with governments’ plans • Inclusive partnerships are seen to exist when CSOs act as co-implementers of government programs • Enabling environment for civil society • Continuous trend towards shrinking space incl. growing restrictions on access to funding and limitations on peaceful assembly

10. Task Team’s Review of Evidence on implementation ofBpD 1(2) • Donor support to and engagement with civil society • Policies in place and a few good examples (CoP) • Gap between policies and practice and disrespect for RoI/limited support to CSOs as dev. actors in their own right • CSOs’ development effectiveness • Istanbul Principles and its framework; CPDE • Challenges include CSOs’ internal management and governance; coordination and information sharing across CSOs and with governments; results monitoring and reporting; and ensuring demand-driven programming.

11. What’s the focus?

12. For the next session…. • Focus on what works in the implementation of CSO related commitments, and • Sweden’s track record

13. Thankyou!