Source: OECD/DAC
THE 2006 SURVEY ON MONITORING THE PARIS DECLARATION was undertaken in 34 countries that receive aid. The results of the survey are presented in two volumes. Volume 1 provides an overview of key findings across 34 countries. Volume 2 presents the baseline and key findings in each of the 34 countries that have taken part in the survey. These chapters are based primarily on the data and findings communicated by government and donors to the OECD through the Paris Declaration monitoring process. A more detailed description of this process, how this chapter was drafted and what sources were used is included in Volume 1, Chapter 2. Both Volume 1 (Overview) and Volume 2 (Country Chapters) of the 2006 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration can be downloaded at the OECD website: www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/monitoring A second round of monitoring will be organised in the first quarter of 2008 and will be an important contribution to the Accra High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in September 2008.
Click here to read the full report
Source: International Civil Society Steering Group for the Accra High Level Forum
This draft policy paper has been prepared by the International Civil Society Steering Group for the Accra High Level Forum. It aims to provide the basis for further discussions with civil society about the aid effectiveness agenda, in particular at the regional and national consultations planned for September-November 2007. It is hoped that these discussions will help to develop and prioritise the positions and recommendations of CSOs on aid effectiveness.
The document will form the basis for a civil society position paper for the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, to be held in Accra, Ghana, in September 2008; and for advocacy with donors and governments in the interim.
Consultation discussions of this draft should consider the following questions:
How relevant are these recommendations to the reality of how aid works on the ground? Would they make a difference?
Are there new recommendations or ideas which should be added? What would you do to make aid more accountable and effective?
Are there recommendations or ideas in the draft which should be removed?
Which are the most important areas for reform to deliver real change on the ground? Which recommendations should CSOs prioritise in advocacy work?
What are CSOs’ experiences of the aid effectiveness agenda in practice? Are there examples of good or bad reforms which could inform the development of this paper?
Click here to read more
Source: www.betteraid.org
Betteraid.org is a campaign website that aims to provide information and updates on aid effectiveness issues, framing in the basic development issues; provide support for advocacy purposes; and provide opportunities to conduct web-based advocacy/campaigning.The website is published by the CSO Parallel Process to the Ghana High Level Forum Network
The CSO Parallel Process to the Ghana High Level Forum network brings together various local, national, regional and international NGOs who are engaged in development issues, particularly the aid architecture and the aid effectiveness agenda. This network is involved in a multi-stakeholder process of engagement leading towards the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, to be held in Accra, Ghana, in September 2008.
The network is keen to develop awareness of the aid effectiveness agenda at the local and national level and sees the Ghana HLF as an important opportunity for bringing about discussion and debate and the engagement of CSOs on the said agenda. CSO concerns include among others, governance and accountability, ownership, effective aid delivery, tied aid and conditionality, at the same time ensuring that the core issues of gender equality, human rights and solidarity in the aid architecture are seriously addressed.
The list of current partner networks involved in this initiative include Alliance 2015, Eurodad, Social Watch, Civicus, IBIS, Reality of Aid, Third World Network (TWN), IBON, and Concord. The International Steering Committee is currently under the chairmanship of IBON.
Click here to go their website
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.
Source: Focus on the Global South
Every year, the World Bank (Bank) channels US$ 18-20 billion to developing countries in the form of loans and grants with the ostensible aim of reducing poverty and promoting economic growth. The Bank always acts in tandem with its sibling agency, the International Monetary Fund (Fund), even in countries that no longer borrow from the Fund. Not all Bank financing and support goes to governments. A significant amount goes directly to the private sector, especially large corporations, in the form of loans, technical assistance and mitigation of investment risks.
Click here to read the full report
Source: Third World Network
The current proposals for reform at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will not bring about benefits for the majority of its developing-country members, nor will they restore the Fund’s credibility or improve its efficacy as a multilateral financial institution, according to a leading developing- country representative at the IMF.
In an article published in the upcoming issue of the Journal for International Economic Law, Hector Torres, an Alternate Executive Director of the IMF, and representative of the Group of 24, said that the “quota and voice†reform process launched at the IMF in September 2006 is unlikely to redress the dysfunctional nature of the Fund’s governance structure or correct the power imbalances which lead to its ineffectiveness in both its regulatory as well as lending roles.
The reform process launched in Singapore in September 2006 is not likely to help the Fund to recover credibility or improve efficiency, writes Torres. Referring to the discussions to revise the quotas allocated to IMF members, Torres commented: “At the Board, we are just tinkering with the variables used in the current flawed quota formula and preparing ourselves to horse-trade on the weight that should be given to those that better accommodate narrow national interests.
Click here to read the full article
Source: Choike
Last June, after over a year of review, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) modified its main guidelines on the implementation of Article IV of its Articles of Agreement. The guidelines, issued originally in 1977, regulated the Fund's role in exercising surveillance over the exchange rate policies of member countries. It was probably not a surprise that the recent revision of the rules that guide its surveillance of members' exchange rate policies reduces policy space for developing countries.
Click here to read the full report
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
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
