Roundtable Topic 5: Mutual accountability

This page comprises information on background resources for Roundtable 5, compiled by the United Nations Development Programme. It does not necesserily represent the views of the Third High Level Forum organizers.

To access detailed information on the background resources for Mutual accountability listed below, please visit the UNDP Aid Effectiveness Portal.

Background Resources

Paolo de Renzio, “Promoting mutual accountability in aid relationships: synthesis note”, ODI, January 2006
This paper describes a number of mechanisms for mutual accountability at the international level, including the EU’s Cotonou Agreement, the DAC Peer Review process, the WB and IMF Global Monitoring Reports and the Africa Partnership Forum. It finds they are generally quite weak, with loose targets, unclear monitoring mechanisms, limited recipient voice and lack of enforceability. It calls for more dissemination of information on aid flows and performance, more independent monitoring of donor behaviour, stronger fora for high-level dialogue and measures to promote a common voice among Southern countries. At the country level, the paper argues that mutual accountability requires four conditions: confidence, credibility, coherence and capacity. 

ActionAid, “Making aid accountable and effective: an ActionAid Ten Point Plan for real aid reform”, 2007
ActionAid argues that closed-door discussions between donors and partner governments can never be enough to secure mutual accountability. It argues for donors to adopt binding, monitorable agreements setting out the quantum and terms of external assistance. Donors should be held to account in international fora for their performance against their commitments. This should be done in a more representative institution than the OECD. It argues for the creation of a UN Commissioner on Aid, who would review donor conduct and act as an ombudsman to resolve disputes.

Agulhas, “What new structures are emerging at country level to support a more effective and accountable development partnership?”, Thematic Study No. 5, 2006 Asian Regional Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Manila, October 2006
Based on studies of the development partnership in Vietnam and Cambodia, this paper describes a number of processes that are contributing to greater mutual accountability: (i) the negotiation of detailed aid-effectiveness commitments at country level; (ii) more intensive dialogue around aid practices; and (iii) the establishment of baselines and review processes to increase the transparency of aid practices. However, it also identified a number of factors working against mutual accountability, including lack of delegation of authority by donors to their country offices, poor information flows between donors and government and in some cases a lack of commitment on both sides. 

Marcus Cox, Samuel Wangwe, Hisaaki Mitsui and Tran Thi Hanh, “Independent Monitoring Report on implementation of the Hanoi Core Statement”, Hanoi, November 2007
The Independent Monitoring of the Hanoi Core Statement (HCS) concluded that, while the basic elements for mutual accountability were in place in Vietnam, including clear, country-level, aid-effectiveness principles and commitments, well developed dialogue structures and an independent review mechanism, mutual accountability was still not very effective. The Report found that the HCS implementation process had become bogged down in detailed reforms, and the mutual accountability would be strengthened by separating political oversight from technical management. It also suggested an annual action plan on aid effectiveness, focusing on a few strategic priorities, to increase the focus. 

Debt Relief International, “Aid effectiveness: better indicators needed: non-OECD aid often highly effective”, Strategies for Financing for Development, Newsletter of HIPC CPB, Issue 32, 2007
The organisation Debt Relief International has developed a methodology to assist HIPC countries to assess the quality of their aid providers, based on their policies and procedures. The methodology uses the Paris Declaration indicators, plus additional indicators on concessionality, conditionality, predictability, flexibility in response to exogenous shocks, coverage of key PRSP sectors and so on. The idea is that donor league tables of this kind will increase competition among donors, and enable developing countries to make informed choices between aid providers.