Government in Development Cooperation: Challenges and Opportunities

1. Workshop 1b Government in development cooperation: more or less? Report

2. Statements emergingfrom the scenarios(DRAFT – Jan Van Ongevalle, HIVA/KULeuven) 1/2 Expect continued pressure on ODA budgets – The economic crisis, the heightened scrutiny towards public spending and the conservative political reflex is likely to affect the ODA budgets. A strong push for a pragmatic and limited development agenda might weigh on the ability to remain a relevant actor - Whether the focus lies on green growth, on access to natural resources and security issues, or on technocratic development initiatives, bilateral cooperation agencies will get less room to take an holistic approach to development. Government actors will not have the mandate to work towards ‘thick’ solutions (Edwards, 2011) in line with the increasing complexity of development challenges. This will weigh heavily on their ability to remain relevant development actor. Or in contrary, a limited development agenda might push governments to specialize in a niche of development action and remain a relevant actor – The massive proliferation of actor and budget cuts will force government agencies to specialize in technocratic development cooperation in order to boost efficiency. Being strong players in this specific field of development cooperation, makes governments complementary to other development actors, and therefore relevant.

3. Statements emergingfrom the scenarios(DRAFT – Jan Van Ongevalle, HIVA/KULeuven) 2/2 Promote cross-sectoral partnerships between development actors – As more and more development actors come to the fore, governments should invest in connecting them, and promoting cross-fertilization and cross-sectoral partnerships. Government is pushing for private sector involvement in development cooperation more than the private sector is – In the face of increasing critique that development cooperation is failing, government look at the private sector as new force for more effective development action. The motivations to work with and expectations about the role of the private sector are unclear and often not verified with practice on the ground.

4. Philippe Besson (delegate OECD –DAC) • OECD now pushes for more ‘horizontal’ work across the committees • ODA quantity versus quality: not just the amount but also the quality improvements should be taken into account • Busan shows that progress has been made in the diversification of development actors • Not idealizing nor demonizing private sector, e.g. for food security it is clear that the public resources are too limited, so the private sector should be involved (production & distribution of food in the South; ethical consumption principles in the North)

5. Paul Verlé (BTC/CTB) Some provocative statements: • ODA represents less & less overall budget (e.g. remittances also important) • Paris declaration is nothing new, e.g. The Pearson Commission (1969) had the same key-words • Policy dialogue is too pretentious (look at ourselves: how inclusive are we towards civil society and all layers of the society in our own national policies?) • Focus on “value for money” or results-based policies - but how do we measure it and what do we do with it? • Private sector should be stimulated but we also have to learn from the past (and avoid ‘white elephants’)

6. Debate (1/2) • Positive trends • Diversification of actors • Genuine partnerships are stimulated • Less accent onquantity of ODA, qualityis also taken intoconsideration; • Tendency to avoidduplication

7. Debate (2/2) • Negative: • Thinsolutionsprevail, as everyactorsearcheshis niche • What are the argumentsforworking more cross-sectional? • Whyare we reflectingonscenario’s for survival of organisationsand notforadressing the problems of the poor? • Do we have to take the priorities of oursouthern partners forgranted? Do they have the best intentions?