|
Roundtable Topic 6: Civil society and aid effectiveness This page comprises information on background resources for Roundtable 6, 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 Civil society and aid effectiveness listed below, please visit the UNDP Aid Effectiveness Portal.
Background Resources
International CSO Steering Group, “From Paris 2005 to Accra 2008: Will aid become more accountable and effective? – a critical approach to the aid effectiveness agenda”, 2007
The paper describes aid effectiveness as one of a triad of issues on development finance, along with debt and realising the 0.7% GNI pledge. It states that some donors have attempted to reduce the Paris agenda to a mere technical process around aid delivery, ignoring its key political dimensions. It calls for the agenda to be broadened to encompass the ultimate goals of development – poverty reduction, gender equality, human rights and social justice. It calls for a more democratic interpretation of country ownership, for a complete end to all policy conditionality, for higher standards of openness and transparency on the part of both donors and partners, and for more support to NGOs as development actors. It calls for a new system of independent monitoring of the Paris Declaration at international, national and local levels, supported by a new ECOSOC Development Cooperation Forum. It calls for donors to use aid purely for poverty eradication, and not for their own foreign and economic policy interests, for the untying of all aid, the reform of technical assistance, a more needs-based aid allocation process, and new targets on multi-year predictability of aid. Advisory Group on Civil Society and Aid Effectiveness, “Concept Paper”, September 2007
This concept paper notes that CSOs play three roles in the development architecture: as donors; as channels or recipients for ODA; and as watchdogs of the public interest. While the Paris Declaration does not create obligations for CSOs, it refers to them in a number of contexts, including consultations on aid coordination and participatory approaches to formulating and implementing national development strategies. The Paris Declaration seems to imply that the national development strategy represents a national consensus on development priorities, without recognising the reality of political debate. It fails to acknowledge that CSOs may legitimately represent alternative points of view. CSOs therefore seek an understanding of country ownership that is more political in nature, allowing space for a plurality of views and recognising the reality of power imbalances. The concept paper also notes that, while CSOs can at times be effective partners of government and donors within development programmes, they also have a comparative advantage in localised, participatory development initiatives. Advisory Group on Civil Society and Aid Effectiveness, “Issues Paper”, September 2007
This paper is designed to initiate discussion on the quality of CSO relationships with their primary constituents, with each other, with partner country governments and with donors. It suggests a range of issues affecting the quality of these partnerships. Regarding partner country governments, it notes the importance of an enabling legal environment for civil society activity, of institutional platforms for policy dialogue and of partnerships in the implementation of development projects and programmes. Real Lavergne and Jacqueline Wood, “Aid effectiveness and non-state partnerships: analytical considerations”, paper for CIDA, December 2006
This paper notes that the new aid paradigm relates mainly to government-to-government relations, and is abstracted from local political realities and human rights issues which are of more concern to civil society actors. While civil society recognises the importance of the aid-effectiveness agenda, it has difficulty defining its own role within it. The paper suggests several ways of enriching the agenda, to include: more recognition of the role of non-state actors in areas such as enhancing political representation, advocacy, innovation, knowledge sharing and building social capital; more elaboration on donor partnerships with non-state actors; more recognition of the political dimension of development; a recognition of the limits of planning and the value of decentralised development activities. Catherine Agg, “Trends in Government Support for Non-Governmental Organizations – Is the “Golden Age” of the NGO Behind Us?”, UNRISD Civil Society and Social Movements Programme Paper Number 23, June 2006
This very interesting study of the rise of NGOs as development actors notes that they were seen by donors during the 1990s as a means of bypassing weak and corrupt states. This involved assumptions that were untested empirically and had dubious democratic credentials. The return to alignment and programmatic assistance undermined the position of NGOs, leading some to predict the demise of the NGO sector. However, while some donors (Canada, Sweden, Switzerland) have significantly reduced the proportion of their ODA going through INGOs, others (the UK, Norway, Japan, the Netherlands) have not, but have encouraged their NGOs partners to move away from implementing small aid projects towards partnership and knowledge transfer with Southern NGOs. In addition, the rise of global funds and private philanthropic flows has created new sources of funding for international NGOs. The article is critical of INGO practices towards Southern NGOs, noting their tendency to control funding sources and create dependency. Their continuous efforts to transfer their own skills and promote their own countries’ development agenda often create resentment among their Southern partners. It suggests that Southern NGOs need greater autonomy to play a constructive role in their own societies.
|
