ACCOUNTABLE AND TRANSPARENT DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION:

NEXT STEPS AND THE DCF ROLE

Matthew MartinDevelopment 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 >30 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): RECOMMENDATIONS1. Annual review of global MA progress, judged by:

i. increased balance in representation of programme country executives, parliaments and other stakeholders;

ii. closer coordination or rationalisation of mechanisms;iii. integration of independent spotlights into official processes; iv. practicality to assist national MA, especially by providing evidence on

the behaviour of individual providers; v. provider and programme country behaviour change; and vi. provider and programme country participation/formal commitment

2. Annual review of progress in each global mechanism, judged by i-vi +:

vii. quality of evidence (especially on the behaviour of individual providers in specific programme countries);

viii. ownership and participation of the maximum proportion of its targeted shareholder groups;

3. 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): RECOMMENDATIONS4. Ensure official mechanisms (WP-EFF, DCF) integrate non-

official independent spotlights into their work5. Continue reinforcing representative programme country,

Southern provider, parliament, other stakeholder voices, as well as agenda–setting role designing frameworks/targets, in the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness and the DCF

6. Ensure mutual accountability on development is a key focus in G20, with strong programme country voice

7. 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.

8. Increase “mutuality” of DAC peer reviews by including programme country governments, parliaments, CSOs

9. Increase funding for grassroots monitoring/MA initiatives 10. 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): RECOMMENDATIONS1. 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 women’s 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:1. Conduct annual assessment of progress on global MA (overall and

individual mechanisms), national MA and transparency, based on criteria and elements discussed above

2. Continue multi-stakeholder consultations on progress in future DCF analysis and meetings

3. 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:4. Work with the WP-EFF Task Team on MA to identify key independent

global and regional MA mechanisms to promote and improve5. 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.

6. Advocate a dramatic increase in capacity-building support to potential analysts of information on development cooperation so that greater transparency promotes accountability.