Source: ODI
Drawing on DFID’s third White Paper (2006) (WP3), the DFID Effective States Team (EST), in January 2007, commissioned ODI to conduct a ‘light touch’ review of: (i) multi-donor models for supporting civil society; and (ii) efforts to reach out to ‘nontraditional’ civil society. The study tests the assumption that multi-donor support mechanisms scale up and enhance the effectiveness of civil society engagement with the state for improved governance and poverty reduction
The study identifies and analyses:
(a) Existing multi-donor programmes for support to civil society as well as on-going transitions to harmonised ways of working.
(b) How particular multi-donor funds are positioned within the broader aid architecture in any one country.
(c) Experience of engaging with different non-traditional civil society organisations, and related challenges, strengths and weaknesses.
The multi-donor civil-society support models examined by this review in many cases build on existing bilateral efforts to broker relations between citizens and the state. Most multi-donor civil-society support programmes are now managed by intermediaries. This includes INGOs, local CSOs, multilaterals, local foundations and community funds. Donors’ choice of intermediaries for civil society support reflects a combination of policy objectives, credibility with the state, management capacity, and ability to provide capacity building support to smaller CSOs.International NGOs (INGOs) tend to be favoured in less stable environments because of their already established programmes and relationships with the state. This transition to local foundations needs to be carefully managed, especially in fragile state contexts where the legal framework is opaque and is often applied differently to donors, international NGOs and local civil society. In some cases, donors have committed core funding to CSOs with a track record in research and advocacy. As DFID withdraws from directly facilitating civic engagement with the state it potentially transfers risk to local civil-society grantees. Local ownership of multi-donor funds can be problematic. Although intermediary and core funding models seek to facilitate ‘arms-length’ engagement with civil society, donors may continue to ‘pull the strings’ over priorities and management. Holding government to account is a process that emerges slowly and unevenly. Most of the programmes examined focus on citizen voice, including coalition building and access to information. A sector focus may make it easier to align support for civil society with specific policy outcomes and to respond to CSOs evolving capacity-building needs. Harmonisation with other donors on support to civil society allows DFID to influence the aid agenda while also securing long-term funding for civil-society.
In a few cases, DFID has worked to structure a range of multi-donor basket funds for civil society support within the country. A range of multi-donor funds for civil society support may be especially important in countries where DFID is withdrawing in favour of the IFIs, but where IFIs are also not as well equipped to work with CSOs. Efforts to reach out to the ‘non traditional CSOs’ are often underpinned by very different processes and motives. Certain non-traditional CSOs, such as grassroots movements, may be very effective agents of citizen voice and accountability. However they are often weakly institutionalised, and may not be formally registered. Different programmes have worked in different ways to enhance reach to nontraditional’ civil society.
Click on the attachment below to read the full report
In a letter dated 27 July 2007 to all permanent missions to the United Nations in New York, the President of the General Assembly confirmed the 22 and 23 October 2007 as the dates for the High-level Dialogue on Financing for Development. The President asked all Member States to be represented at the highest possible level during the Dialogue.
In accordance with the aformentioned announcement, the Financing for Development Office (FfDO) and NGLS have opened the application process for participation in the High-level Dialogue on Financing for Development (22-23 October 2007), as well as informal interactive hearings with representatives of civil society organizations (11 October 2007). The application form for participation in the Hearings and the High-level Dialogue can be retrieved online here. More information about the Financing for Development (FfD) process leading up to the review conference in Doha in the second half of 2008
can be found in the joint FfDO/NGLS newsletter, 'The Road to Doha' as well as on the FfDO website
Past issues of 'The Road to Doha' are available here.
Foreign Policy Research Institute
The Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program is pleased to announce the publication of Global Trends and Transitions: 2007 Survey of Think Tanks, an in-depth survey of all known public policy research organizations, or “think tanks,â€worldwide. James McGann, Director of the Think Tank and Civil Societies Program “the‘think tanks’think tankâ€specializes in the study of research organizations; the survey was carried out in order to develop an empirical base for further research on trends that are currently affecting think tanks. The findings contained in the report are a follow up to the 1999 comprehensive assessment of this class of institutions. We expect that this study will make a major contribution to the understanding of public policy research organizations, and is likely to become an important reference point for donors, policy makers, and civil society groups that are interested in working with these important institutions. A summary of the findings is provided below.
Summary of Key Findings
-Decline in growth of think tanks worldwide but especially in Africa and Eastern Europe.
-Increased specialization of research topics and agendas
-Dramatic decline in research on environmental issues and rise in research focused on international development and cooperation.
-Major shift away from advocacy oriented activities
-Move away form producing books in US and Canada and a global increase in the production of policy briefs
-The vast majority of think thanks in the world operate with relatively small staffs and budgets.
-An elite class of mega think tanks that operate on the national, regional and global level tend to have large staffs and budgets.
-Media and internet have become a major market for think tank products.
-Think thanks are facing increased competition from For-Profit Consulting Firms,24/7 Cable News Networks, Government Organized NonGovernmental Organizations (GONGOS)and Lobbying and Advocacy Groups
The on-going challenge for think tanks is to produce timely and accessible policy oriented research that effectively engages policymakers, the press and the public on the critical issues facing a country. Gone are the days when a think tank could operate with the motto “research it, write it and they will find it.†Today, think tanks must be lean, mean, policy machines that produce research and analysis that is understandable and accessible for policy makers and the public. The Economist described “good think tanks†as those organizations that are able to combine “intellectual depth, political influence, and flair for publicity, comfortable surroundings, and a streak of eccentricity.†Those who fail to organize and integrate these qualities into their think tank will become known for their “pedantry, irrelevance, obscurity, poverty and conventionality.†Many think tanks have already successfully met this challenge and are now playing a critical role in bridging the divide between the academic and policy communities and between policy makers and the public. For all the reasons outlined in this summary report, independent think tanks will continue to play a critical role in the policy making process. Clearly, there is no shortage of policy challenges at the national, regional and global level. The world we live in can be characterized by what someone described as “The Four Mores.†More issues, more actors, more competition and more conflict. Over the last 10-15 years, governments and civil society groups have come to rely on thinks tanks for ideas, evidence and advice and I am confident that this trend will continue well into the future.
Click on the attachment below to read the full report
Source; AFRODAD
China-focused African campaigners, Chinese African Studies academic specialists, NGO representatives, concerned researchers and campaigners from within and outside China came face to face in China to discuss and analyze the country’s new role in the South and the global system, with Africa as a focus of study. It was successful for it provided a good starting point for the participants to think about Africa – China relations with a more nuanced and broader perspective, as well as, identify possibilities for future collaborative work
Click here to read more
Source: AFRODAD
Aid has a critical role to play in the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals in many developing countries, especially when it is deployed effectively in an accountable manner as part of a wider development strategy; it makes a lasting difference in helping people to lift themselves out of poverty. Of key importance to aid delivery and management has been the issues of accountability and policy dialogue.
Accountability is now a buzzword in contemporary development discourse. It is central to development policy, whether government accountability (as a central component of good governance), corporate accountability (promoted by a swathe of standards and codes), or civil society accountability (claimed by people and organizations from the bottom up). When accountability works, citizens are able to make demands on powerful institutions and ensure that those demands are met . The concept of accountability describes the rights and responsibilities that exist between people and the institutions that affect their lives, including governments, civil society and market actors. Accountability is not only the means through which individuals and organizations are held responsible for their decisions and actions, but also the means by which they take internal responsibility for shaping their organizational mission and values, for opening themselves to external scrutiny and for assessing performance in relation to goals. Accountability has beneficial effects not only for an organization’s stakeholders, but for the organization itself. In practice, accountability can take a number of different forms, depending on the institution in question.
The purpose of the 2005 Paris declaration on Aid effectiveness is to improve aid delivery in a way that best supports the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. It highlighted the importance of predictable, well aligned, programmed, and coordinated aid to achieve results . One of its five key principles is mutual accountability in which donors and developing countries pledged that they will hold each other mutually accountable for development based on the other four principles of Ownership, Alignment, Harmonization, and Management for Results. The Paris Declaration emphasizes accountability in relation to parliament and other domestic stakeholders which can only be feasible with effective structures for dialogue.
Click here to read more
Source: Ghana Civil Society Resource Center
There’s been a real flurry of activity around the Millennium Goals mid point this past week. Some of it has focused on the way we can push governments to meet the goals, some on appraising the governments’ performance, some rallying the public and informing people of the goals, some critically discussing their meaning and focus.
While it seems to be widely agreed by civil society organisations that the MDGs are not the p ana cea to solve the world's problems, there does appear to be a strong body of opinion that they have provided a framework for development and negotiations and monitoring of their governments’ performance against these commitments. Indeed, even if they were met, the Goals would still not avoid an enormous number of deaths as they only look to halve infant mortality for example. Who decides what half lives? Equally, the aim of putting more Northern donor money into the South will not solve the problems as there needs to be significant work in tackling corruption, strengthening democracies and increasing transparency and accountability of governments to their people, both in the South and the North.
By coming out in such numbers on July 7th (a mid-point of MDG commitments till 2015) – 70 cities hosted events of one kind or another - members of the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) showed there is motivation to push governments to achieve MDG targets. Recognising that some progress has been made in some countries, most people are still sorely disappointed with the poor performance of states that signed the Millennium Declaration and made promises to their citizens. Millions of impoverished people continue to live in socially dismal and sub-human conditions without solution or hope. Most countries in the South lag far behind their targets and Northern countries have largely failed to fulfill their promises with regard to aid, trade and debt cancellations. In Africa, for example, 13 African countries (mostly in North Africa) can achieve or come close to the MDGs by 2015 if they continue at the current pace. The remaining African countries have not made any progress in gender equality and women's empowerment, and tens of millions of citizens around the world are still living in an ocean of poverty.
Click here to read more
Source: Third World Network
The High-Level Segment of the recently revitalised United Nations' Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) has adopted a Ministerial Declaration after unusually difficult and prolonged negotiations.
The declaration was endorsed by the Council on Tuesday night after a successful last-hour attempt by ECOSOC President Amb. Dalius Cekuolis of Lithuania to reach agreement on some contentious issues, particularly climate change and overseas development assistance.
The adoption of the Ministerial Declaration was repeatedly postponed despite intensive negotiations over several days that often went into late at night. It was supposed to have been presented to the Council last Thursday. But wrangling over several issues continued for days after most of the Ministers had left.
There had been significant divergences, mainly on North-South lines, on a few issues, particularly climate change and development aid commitments.
In the negotiations on the climate change paragraph, there had been differences on how the principle of common but differentiated responsibility would be treated, including in relation to additional terms such as "respective capabilities" and "social and economic conditions", how the role of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) would be mentioned, and the context of sustainable development.
Also, developing countries wanted a commitment from developed countries that the latter would make presentations to the ECOSOC on the status of their implementation of internationally agreed development goals (IADGs) under ECOSOC's newly established Annual Ministerial Review (AMR) mechanism. In the final text, there is only very mild language inviting all countries to make national presentations.
Click here to read the full report
Source: European Centre for Development Policy Management
The AU Executive Council proposed a joint EU-Africa Council of Ministers to take place in Cairo at the end of November in order to prepare the Lisbon Summit and most likely approve the joint EU-Africa Strategy and examine the political declaration before it is submitted to the Heads of States and Governments. This meeting would take place in November just before the Summit. This proposal still needs to be discussed with the European Union. The EU-Africa Ministerial Troika (only assembling the two Commissions and respective Presidencies) planned to be held in Accra on 31 October will have already examined a very advanced version of the Strategy.
Click here to read the full article
Source: ODI
The Briefing paper argues that the Ghana's Multidonor budget Support has done enough to justify itself but is flawed.It has not achieved a sufficient critical mass and it has strayed too far from its initial objective of reducing transactions costs. These flaws have prevented it from minimising the risks of injecting budget support into a still weak fiscal system. While it is seen as having kept reform on the agenda and as having a generally pro-poor influence, it has neither been able to minimise the risks by galvanising more effective PFM systems nor to maximise the payoff in terms of poverty-reduction.
Remedial action is therefore recommended, along the following lines:
• The MDBS programme needs to be re-conceived primarily as a method of budget financing, not as a tool for policy leverage.
• Annual disbursements should not be conditional but instead be dependent upon the maintenance of ‘due processes’ in public spending (see Box 2).
• Reforms should be promoted by open dialogue with both domestic and external stakeholders.
• The PAF needs to be re-designed as a mechanism for enhancing internal, rather than external, accountability, by making reform targets and results public, and by giving wider access to policy debates.
• The original objective of minimising transaction costs needs to be brought back to centre-stage.
Parallel steps by the Ghanaian Government are also needed. It should:
• Develop a statement of aid policy setting out Government preferences for different forms of assistance and the future development of MDBS
vis à vis other modalities.
• Take actions to strengthen the public finances and raise the credibility of the budget, to reduce dangers of misuse of budgetary aid.
• Strengthen its capacity to put assistance to good use. This would require difficult decisions about the desirable size and remuneration of the public service
CLick here to read the full paper
Source: UN ECOSOC
Preparation for the ECOSOC Biennial Development Cooperaton Forum included the Vienna High Level Symposium. This event, organized in cooperation with the Government of Austria, took place at the United Nations Office in Vienna on 19-20 April 2007. The theme of the Vienna High-level Symposium was "Country-level experiences in coordinating and managing development cooperation". Organized as a multi-stakeholder event, with the participation of senior individuals in an expert capacity, the symposium used country case studies as a foundation for discussions.
Click here to read the background documents and presentations
