ACCOUNTABLE AND TRANSPARENT DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION: NEXT STEPS AND THE DCF ROLE

1
ACCOUNTABLE AND TRANSPARENT DEVELOPMENT
COOPERATIONNEXT STEPS AND THE DCF ROLE

• Matthew Martin
• Development Finance International Group
• DCF High-Level Symposium
• Vienna, 12 November 2009

2
STRUCTURE

• Introduction/definitions
• Global Mutual Accountability
• National Mutual Accountability
• Transparency
• Role of the DCF

3
INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS

• One key thematic focus area for DCF. 4 issues
• What practical suggestions to improve global and
  regional mutual accountability (MA) mechanisms ?
• What best practices in national mutual
  accountability mechanisms, and how to
  improve/spread ?
• How can transparency best facilitate MA ?
• What could be the role of the DCF in assisting
  such improvements ?
• Builds on earlier work for DCF as well as by many
  other stakeholders, inputs from gt30 programme
  country officials obtained through other work of
  Development Finance International including
  advising on AAA negotiations, and extensive
  consultations with stakeholders on first draft
• Nevertheless, still draft and comments welcome
  for revision and inclusion as chapter of DCF
  report in 2010

4
INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS

• Terminology
• Programme countries developing countries
  recipients
• Providers donors/lenders development partners
• Mutual accountability definition of all parties,
  for development results and IADGs/MDGs
• Paper and presentation have narrower coverage to
  focus discussion and generate concrete ideas
• Focus on forums accounting for aid
  quantity/quality/results
• Because many forums for programme country
  accountability, stresses this but focus on mutual
  accountability ie of providers as well
• Discuss briefly domestic accountability of
  programme and provider governments to domestic
  stakeholders but will be subject of papers/debate
  in future DCF

5
GLOBAL MA (1) FINDINGS

• Multiple global mechanisms, analyses and
  processes, but few promote systematic behaviour
  change by providers, because
• Several key stakeholder groups (programme
  countries, Southern providers, parliaments, local
  government, Southern civil society) do not have
  sufficient voice in them.
• The agenda for accountability is dominated by
  provider concerns and areas of consensus, and
  does not fully reflect key aspects of concern to
  other stakeholders
• Most stakeholders lack sufficient analysis and
  information on practices and changes by
  individual providers at the national level.
• Behaviour change varies with the degrees to which
  stakeholders concerns are reflected.
• Several good regional MA mechanisms but do not
• cover all global regions or sub-regions
• engage with all stakeholders or
• connect sufficiently to global or national
  mechanisms.

6
GLOBAL MA (2) RECOMMENDATIONS

• Annual review of global MA progress, judged by
• increased balance in representation of programme
  country executives, parliaments and other
  stakeholders
• closer coordination or rationalisation of
  mechanisms
• integration of independent spotlights into
  official processes
• practicality to assist national MA, especially by
  providing evidence on the behaviour of individual
  providers
• provider and programme country behaviour change
  and
• provider and programme country participation/forma
  l commitment
• Annual review of progress in each global
  mechanism, judged by i-vi
• quality of evidence (especially on the behaviour
  of individual providers in specific programme
  countries)
• ownership and participation of the maximum
  proportion of its targeted shareholder groups
• Target 4-5 key mechanisms to fund and improve,
  prioritising those with systematic assessments of
  individual providers, and strong non-executive
  stakeholder voices

7
GLOBAL MA (3) RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Ensure official mechanisms (WP-EFF, DCF)
   integrate non-official independent spotlights
   into their work
2. Continue reinforcing representative programme
   country, Southern provider, parliament, other
   stakeholder voices, as well as agendasetting
   role designing frameworks/targets, in the Working
   Party on Aid Effectiveness and the DCF
3. Ensure mutual accountability on development is a
   key focus in G20, with strong programme country
   voice
4. Promote global, regional and sub-regional peer
   learning and networking for capacity development
   on aid/development effectiveness, especially
   among programme country governments, parliaments
   and civil society stakeholders.
5. Increase mutuality of DAC peer reviews by
   including programme country governments,
   parliaments, CSOs
6. Increase funding for grassroots monitoring/MA
   initiatives
7. Establish MA frameworks between providers and
   regional organisations which they fund

8
NATIONAL MA (1) FINDINGS

• Definition of national MA mechanisms
• as well as being held accountable for development
  results and aid management, programme countries
  hold providers collectively and individually
  accountable for aid.
• Only 7 countries have fully functioning MA, and
  change in provider behaviour patchy and slow.
  Even best mechanisms have important gaps.
• Key barriers to effective national-level MA
  include the lack of
• information and data for programme countries on
  how providers are performing elsewhere, and
  capacity to draw on existing global data
• coherent programme country aid policies, or
  coordination to implement these policies
  effectively across all government agencies.
• capacity and mechanisms for programme countries
  to analyse provider performance
• transparency in sharing information among
  providers and programme countries.

9
NATIONAL MA (2) FINDINGS

• Key components bringing success (therefore basis
  for assessing progress though not one size fits
  all) are
• national programme country aid policy (where
  necessary as for Joint Strategy with providers)
• strong programme country political leadership,
  and clear institutional responsibilities for aid
  management
• locally-driven aid quality and results monitoring
  frameworks, including annual targets for
  individual providers
• comprehensive databases which allow programme
  countries to monitor quality and effectiveness
  themselves
• independent analytical input from civil society
  and independent monitoring groups to help resolve
  key problems
• peer pressure among providers (especially in
  countries with pro-MA providers) and
• programmes to build programme country capacity to
  monitor, analyse and negotiate MA

10
NATIONAL MA (3) FINDINGS contd

• Accountability of providers and programme country
  governments to other stakeholders is even less
  advanced.
• Virtually no national MA mechanism debates
  performance with parliaments, local government
  agencies or civil society, let alone bringing
  change as a result, due to
• dominance of programme country accountability to
  providers
• low willingness of many providers and programme
  country governments to open another front of
  consultation on aid issues
• low capacity of other stakeholders to interpret
  and analyse information
• poor transparency of information and
• low willingness of stakeholders to engage.
• Domestic accountability mechanisms in programme
  countries are often weak, largely due to low
  capacity and resourcing of non-executive
  stakeholders.
• Domestic accountability in provider countries can
  be strong, but often takes little account of
  global aid effectiveness agenda.
• DA could powerfully reinforce MA (topic for
  future DCF symposia)

11
NATIONAL MA (4) RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Annual review of national MA mechanisms for
   presence of components for success, and
   progress in changing behaviour and increasing
   results
2. Establish focal point to document national MA
   best practice and facilitate sharing through
   communities of practice and online libraries
3. Improve existing mechanisms to increase best
   practice examples (and promote peer learning on
   why they work)
4. Establish new mechanisms in 30 countries in
   2010-11, notably in fragile states
5. Establish global or regional programmes for
   systematic capacity-building support to programme
   country governments on national MA.
6. Separate programmes to reinforce capacity of
   parliaments, local governments and CSOs on MA and
   wider aid issues
7. Further debate at next DCF Symposium on domestic
   accountability to reinforce mutual accountability
   
8. For individual providers systematic integration
   of aid effectiveness commitments into all country
   strategies and projects develop regular
   processes through which held accountable by
   partner group

12
TRANSPARENCY (1)

• Longstanding efforts to build global, provider
  and more recently programme country databases
• Recently reinforced emphasis on transparency,
  including documents/conditions in AAA, multiple
  new (esp. data) initiatives and campaigns for
  transparency notably IATI, PWYF, reinforcement
  of existing efforts, raising stakeholder
  expectations
• Too early to evaluate success of most
  initiatives, though clear are major gaps,
  duplications, risks of non-participation or delay
  by major stakeholders
• Key factors in/criteria for success of
  initiatives will be degree to which information
  is

13
TRANSPARENCY (2)

• aligned with programme country budgeting systems
  
• collected from all providers (including
  developing countries, foundations and CSOs and
  all of the main DAC providers)
• encouraging programme country governments to
  increase transparency on use of aid
• collected also from programme country
  stakeholders (including parliamentary, audit
  office and grassroots impact monitoring) as
  cross-checks on official sources
• building on national monitoring and evaluation
  frameworks so that results of aid can be easily
  compared with national development goals
• accessible and widely disseminated to
  stakeholders
• going beyond data to include documents on
  conditionalities, policies and procedures
• used to analyse provider agency and programme
  country government behaviour, and thereby to
  provoke debate on mutual accountability.

14
TRANSPARENCY (3) RECOMMENDATIONS

1. annual assessment of the degree to which these
   criteria are being applied, multi-stakeholder
   expectations are being fulfilled, and provider
   (and programme country) behaviour on transparency
   and effectiveness are changing.
2. a sharp increase in capacity-building support for
   analysis by programme country governments,
   Northern and Southern parliaments, audit offices,
   local government representatives and CSOs, to
   ensure transparency promotes accountability.
3. greater networking and peer learning among
   transparency initiatives to avoid duplication,
   learn from best practice, and respond adequately
   to multi-stakeholder needs.

15
CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES CONCLUSIONS

• Country circumstances all mutual accountability
  and transparency initiatives will be more
  problematic to achieve in fragile states and aid
  orphans. These countries should therefore be a
  particular focus.
• Gender accountability and transparency there has
  been no systematic focus placed on gender issues
  at the global, regional or national levels of
  mutual accountability, in assuring either the
  participation of womens organisations, or the
  degree to which aid is having a specific gender
  impact. More focus could be placed on gender
  aspects in all future MA and transparency
  initiatives. (more at lunch !)

16
KEY POSSIBLE ROLES OF THE DCF

• Already multiple global and national actors, with
  whom DCF must work closely
• Immediate role is multi-stakeholder HLS.
  Thereafter, key possible DCF roles are
• Conduct annual assessment of progress on global
  MA (overall and individual mechanisms), national
  MA and transparency, based on criteria and
  elements discussed above
• Continue multi-stakeholder consultations on
  progress in future DCF analysis and meetings
• Ensure that all stakeholders (including
  independent and non-official assessments) have
  their views fully reflected in DCF outputs, and
  disseminate these outputs widely
• As regards the individual issue areas analysed,
  the DCF could also
• Work with the WP-EFF Task Team on MA to identify
  key independent global and regional MA mechanisms
  to promote and improve
• Assist UNDP and communities of practice to
  document and disseminate best practice in
  national MA and transparency, and provide
  advisory input to capacity-building programmes.
• Advocate a dramatic increase in capacity-building
  support to potential analysts of information on
  development cooperation so that greater
  transparency promotes accountability.