Submission by BetterAid to the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness (WP-EFF) with respect to the Second Draft of the Busan

Outcome Document September 2011 General Remarks 1. BetterAid (BA) welcomes the progress that has been made with this 2 nd draft of the Busan Outcome
Document (BOD2). We welcome the renewed sense of ambition in the document and the recognition of the need for a more holistic approach towards development effectiveness, which begins to focus particularly on: Poverty reduction through the lenses of human rights, gender equality, decent work and disability. Needs-based and demand-driven cooperation, country leadership, south-south cooperation and democratic ownership. Improvement on transparency, among others, through the inclusion of time-bound commitments with reference to the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) standard. Greater policy coherence for development. Untying aid and strengthening predictability by 2015. Favouring the broadest possible partnership and the reaffirmation to implement in full the actions agreed under the Paris Declaration (PD) and Accra Agenda for Action (AAA). 2. Recognizing the above, BA however notes that much more needs to be done to make the final BOD a strong and significant agreement for effective development. At present, the document still fails to address important issues and principles that lie at the very heart of development effectiveness. 3. The limited number of concrete and time-bound commitments addressed by the BOD2 raises concerns about the tangibility for results and actions. This extends to the failure of the BOD2 to identify a deadline for implementation as well as the importance of continued monitoring on the local and global level of all PD and AAA commitments. The absence of concrete and time-bound targets, agreed to by the parties, points to a lack of political urgency, which the recent reports from the Survey and Evaluation suggest will likely hamper the full implementation of past and future agreements. In particular, we believe the willingness to include new actors should not dilute the achievements that were made with the PD and AAA commitments. 4. We are concerned with the current expression of the idea of development effectiveness in the BOD text, which, upon further scrutiny, is vague and lacks a comprehensive rights-based approach to development. This is, in particular, important because in our view all development actors, including new actors such as the private sector and emerging donors, should be bound by a rights framework. The multi-track approach that appears in certain parts of the document should not undermine this essential framework for development effectiveness rooted in human rights standards. BA therefore advocates, in line with some of the proposals made in the document, for much stronger and binding regulatory frameworks and standard-based accountability mechanisms for all actors. Aid and development cooperation monitoring systems must improve and build on existing country and regionally relevant indicators and accountability mechanisms. 5. This draft BOD has improved over the previous draft in reaffirming the important role CSOs play in development. But the BOD needs to broaden and not only reaffirm the Paris and Accra commitments. It is important to go beyond and recognize the necessary conditions for policy and programmatic space for CSOs and their inclusion in the different phases of development processes. CSOs have delivered on paragraph 20 in the AAA concerning the accountability of CSOs as development actors in their own right through a comprehensive CSO-led process that led to the adoption of the Istanbul Principles on CSO development effectiveness, along with an International Framework to guide the implementation of these Principles into practice. This progress and these two products -- should be acknowledged.

6. Similarly, we are concerned by the overly state-centric approach in the BOD draft, for example, in the section on fragility and conflict. It is critical that all envisaged processes in-country, such as fragility assessments, compacts and plans, include CSOs, specifically womens organisations given the differential and disproportionate impact on women and girls in these contexts, to ensure the needs, concerns and expectations of the people are reflected in the aid and reform processes 7. Growing inequality, being one of the major challenges for the current development model, is not addressed adequately. Concerted action for gender-responsive social protection and decent work including livelihood creation should be promoted as building blocks for a socially sustainable development strategy that can lift people out of poverty and tackle social and gender inequalities. This should be a key dimension of the BODs expression of development effectiveness. 8. Noting that in the current draft the Global Partnership for Development Effectiveness will be endorsed and signed by governments and multilateral governmental institutions, we however, see this Global Partnership as the outcome of the Working Partys multi-stakeholder process since Accra. As civil society we are convinced, which we believe other members of the Working Party share, of the fundamental importance and added value of the multi-stakeholder approach. Its value is reflected both in terms of its contribution to the effectiveness of development processes and outcomes and in the legitimacy and ownership of development strategies. It is therefore essential that an inclusive multistakeholder architecture at the local, regional and global level applies this experience from the WP-EFF. An equitable and fully inclusive developing country-led multilateral forum will have a clear mandate for policy dialogue and standard-setting on development effectiveness. 9. In summary, BA calls on the WP-EFF and Co-Chairs to address: Time-bound targets for PD/AAA and BOD implementation Development effectiveness framed by human rights and democratic ownership Moving beyond PD and AAA through minimum standards for an enabling environment for CSOs Moving away from overly state-centric approaches in the political context of fragile states Tackling growing inequality Enabling a truly inclusive global aid architecture by adopting inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and structures and taking into account the important role of the United Nations therein.

Paragraphs 1-9 10. We believe, stronger reference should be made to the Paris Declaration and AAA commitments, including a commitment to concrete time-lines and monitoring mechanisms that ensure implementation for each. The call for new, modern and effective approaches to supporting development (para2) should be defined for all aid actors who are party to this Global Partnership within the development effectiveness 1 paradigm as proposed by CSOs, . In this regard we suggest the following: Growing inequality, between rich and poor and men and women, should be expressly highlighted as a disturbing outcome of the current development model and therefore a priority challenge. The reference to the MDGs must be framed within the broader IADGs and recall that all aid actors, including new actors, will be expected to respect the framework of previous commitments on development effectiveness (PD/AAA), including existing internationally agreed commitments on human rights, gender equality, decent work, disability, and environmental sustainability as common principles for engagement and accountability. We believe accountability needs to be strengthened in a post-Busan architecture.

Defining Development Effectiveness: Development effectiveness promotes sustainable change, within a democratic framework, that addresses the causes as well as the symptoms of poverty, inequality and marginalization, through the diversity and complementarity of instruments, policies and actors. Development effectiveness in relation to aid is understood as policies and practices by development actors that deepen the impact of aid and development cooperation on the capacities of poor and marginalized people to realize their rights and achieve the IADGs. Conditions for realizing development effectiveness goals must include measureable commitments to improve the effectiveness of aid

 New financial instruments, such as the Financial Transaction Tax, should be developed over and above existing ODA engagements and commitments. Generally BOD signatories should restate to make resources from new financial mechanisms additional to ODA, in line with previous agreements of the UN FFD process. It is also important that public policies be articulated as policies in their own right for the public good and not purely instrumental to the private sector. Partner countries should be in a position to use their policy space fully, without constraints generated through donors conditionality, but subject to international human rights standards. The reference to public-private partnerships (PPP) must be nuanced by the objectives of development effectiveness, because PPPs often do not contribute to sustainable development solutions (para 8). Paragraphs 10-11: Shared Principles for a Global Partnership for Development Effectiveness 11. Paragraph 10 which puts forward the principles for a Global Partnership for Development Effectiveness defines the parameters for development effectiveness. The reference to common commitments should be rights-based, consistent with international agreements and standards, and monitorable. These commitments should also: Define results in terms of outcomes for all people living in poverty and suffering from inequality and marginalization. Identify development effectiveness principles for South-South cooperation, which include principles of democratic ownership, transparency and broad-based accountability. Define ownership as democratic and relevant in both donor and partner countries. Include the principle of creating a CSO enabling environment based on a recognition of the Istanbul Principles for CSO Development Effectiveness and on CSO commitment to strengthened development results, transparency and accountability as expressed in their International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness. At the core of this enabling environment should be the protection of civil and political rights for civic organizations. 12. On para 11b, the BOD needs to link indicators and targets with human rights legal standards, principles and the commitment of donors and governments to hold themselves accountable for the impact and outcomes of their policies. 13. The commitments should include global development pledges. In addition, standards and a timeframe for developing country frameworks for monitoring progress should be set and any global partnership must be defined as multi-stakeholder in character with clear mechanisms and resources to ensure the meaningful participation by civil society organizations in all their diversity. Realising change: specific areas for action by different stakeholders Paragraphs 12-13: Improving the quality and effectiveness of development co-operation 14. There are a number of elements in para 13 that potentially undermine efforts to pursue ambitious and timely implementation of the Paris and Accra commitments. Firstly, no targets for full implementation are stated, which leaves most as commitments to be met some time in the future and generates limited pressure on signatories to prioritise such actions. 15. Secondly, para 13s statement that results, ownership, transparency and predictability will be the main focus could imply that only a narrow range of Paris and Accra actions will retain political attention. Any priorities identified amongst Paris and Accra actions should not preclude explicit directions to realize all other commitments. 16. The importance of continued efforts to monitor implementation of the Paris and Accra commitments should be emphasized, as such monitoring is vital to maintaining political pressure for implementation. It is also important that the focus of monitoring should not be narrowed (as suggested later in the BOD), The Paris Declaration Evaluation illustrated how the narrow focus of monitoring efforts to date has reduced incentives to achieve many of the Paris and Accra commitments. In that respect, the three 2 voluntary indicators from the optional module on gender equality and aid effectiveness , together with
The optional module developed by the DAC Network on Gender Equality (GENDERNET), has been integrated into the 2011 Paris Declaration monitoring survey on a voluntary piloting basis. Further information: http://www.oecd.org/document/6/0,3746,en_21571361_39494699_46642822_1_1_1_1,00.html

others -particularly indicators measuring countries budget allocations to womens rights and gender equality and an enabling environment for civil society - should become mandatory within the AAA and PD implementation follow up.

Paragraphs 14-17: Ownership, Results and accountability 17. These sections focus almost entirely on the responsibilities of developing country governments to build effective institutions and very little emphasis on the responsibilities and commitments of donors that are relevant for ownership, accountability and sustainable results. The latter should include making use of country systems (this phrase is not used at all) where these are effective and accountable, building capacity in an effective, responsible and responsive way (see comments on technical assistance) and avoiding undermining institutions through parallel donor processes, and fragmented efforts imposing burdens on local institutions. 18. Results-based frameworks should be based on an agreed understanding that the priority is the pursuit of development that concretely and sustainably helps eliminate poverty and upholds human rights, gender equality, decent work, and environmental sustainability. 19. The commitment to demand-driven technical assistance in para 14a is inadequate to address the myriad challenges that remain in dealing with this area of development assistance. This commitment is far weaker than related commitments in the Paris and Accra agreements, fails to identify the specific challenges in making technical assistance more effective and how they will be addressed. The BOD needs to put forward more extensive and ambitious commitments on technical assistance. 20. In identifying joint risk management as important, the BOD fails to elaborate on what this might mean and leaves open the potential for this to simply focus on the fiduciary risks to donors around their investments. Joint risk management should focus on the risks to both donors and countries of their aid policies, so that they are looking at the implications for countries as well as the use of their resources. Paragraph 16 (Gender equality) 21. While we fully support and appreciate the reference to gender equality and womens empowerment, we would urge a stronger focus on integrating gender equality and womens rights throughout the declaration. This should include the important role of women and womens rights organisations in all decision-making processes and ensuring that donor and government financing specifically supports the attainment of gender equality and womens rights. As such increased, substantial, flexible, predictable and multi-year core funding for womens rights organizations needs to be ensured, with effective mechanisms in place to guarantee that funding reaches these organizations in all their diversity. Policies and practices should not only focus on gender mainstreaming, but also on womens rights specific programming. The BOD needs to include concrete time-bound commitments to advance gender equality and womens rights. Moreover, a focus on womens equal political participation and womens economic empowerment, with full enjoyment of all their rights, is essential to ensure their contributions in development, policy-making and development cooperation standard setting. Paragraph 17 (Broad-based and democratic ownership) 22. Para 17 should acknowledge the Open Forum process and CSO commitments in their International Framework. It should make clear that there are already minimum standards for enabling conditions for CSO development effectiveness put forward by the Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment. The BOD should go beyond the AAA and specify the elements of an enabling environment for CSOs. These include rights enshrined in international human rights agreements, including the freedom of association, freedom of expression, the right to operate free from unwarranted state interference, the right to communicate and cooperate, the right to seek and secure funding, and the states duty to protect. 23. Inclusive and democratic ownership (paras 10 and 17) is indeed essential to a strong BOD. The current BOD, however, fails to define what is meant by these essential concepts. Any definition should include, for both legitimacy and effectiveness, multi-stakeholder processes that are inclusive of CSOs, parliaments, local governments and provide options for dialogue with the broader society and guarantee political space. Paragraphs 18-19: Transparent and responsible co-operation (para18-19) 24. On reducing fragmentation of co-operation (para19), the BOD should commit to accelerating the implementation of initiatives aimed at aligning official aid modalities to democratically-determined national development and sector plans, the national budget and national M&E frameworks with the full

participation and effective oversight of civil society. As an example, implementation of the International Health Partnership Plus (IHP+) mechanism should be strengthened and lessons learnt from the IHP+ process should be replicated to other sectors. Furthermore, a division of labour and transparent criteria should be used when applying to decisions on staying in or withdrawing from a partner country or sector. The decision should be agreed upon with partner governments in consultation with CSO representatives. Paragraphs 20-21: Promoting sustainable development in situations of conflict, fragility and vulnerability. 25. There is an overly state centric approach towards peace-building and state-building, and no mention at all of the crucial role civil society, particularly womens organizations, plays in these contexts. It is fundamental that the BOD stresses the need for a balanced approach to supporting both state and civil society capacities and roles in order to transition out of fragility. Such a broad based, inclusive and participatory approach should be mainstreamed into the other aspects addressed by para 20: partnerships, fragility assessments and derived plans should be inclusive and multi-stakeholder. Safeguarding human rights in processes of state-building that follow principles of meaningful participation, accountability, transparency and non-discrimination is important especially in fragile environments. 26. In order to tackle the in-country implementation challenges, it is fundamental that the BOD takes into account and build on the results of the Fragile States Principles Monitoring Surveys. The BOD should commit all development partners to take concrete steps to translate headquarter policies into behavioural change on the ground. Finally, fragility should not serve as an excuse for donors to exempt fragile situations from the benefits of aid and development effectiveness principles. From aid to development effectiveness 27. In general, the concept proposed as development effectiveness through the BOD is largely inconsistent with CSO perspectives of development effectiveness, namely a rights-based approach grounded in democratic ownership and policy coherence. In order to avoid potential duplication and building parallel processes with respect to the UN, which has a key mandate in development policy and practice, the BOD should ensure that the proposed Global Development Partnership acknowledges, harmonizes and coordinates with UN bodies such as the UNDCF. Indeed, the UN should play a central role in the Global Development Partnership, as the multilateral institution where all countries are represented and with a clear mandate to support, promote and coordinate development work, and with specific institutions to support and play different key roles in this process, such as the DESA, the UN DCF and ECOSOC. Paras 23-24: Knowledge Sharing for Sustainable Development 28. On South-South and Triangular cooperation we are keen to restate that CSOs and other development actors must be actively included, respecting the knowledge they can also bring to innovative, locally owned solutions. 29. The issue of social protection is not only an issue for South-South cooperation, it is indeed an important cross cutting issue for combating poverty and inequality in development strategies. This should be reformulated as a paragraph in its own right. Para 25: Private sector and development 30. The current BOD draft acknowledges the growing role of the for-profit private sector in promoting development and growth. While we welcome references to decent work we believe that the BOD should clarify that partner country governments have a key role to play in regulating the environment where the private sector operates and in ensuring that private investments are consistent with commitments to observe democratic ownership, environmental and human rights standards, and the accountability of private sector actors to regulatory public policy and internationally agreed development goals. 31. Public funds and aid money should first of all promote sustainable livelihoods and catalyze productive economic development of small-scale enterprises and cooperatives that provide direct benefits to the poor and marginalized. Donors private sector support should not undermine the legitimate and pivotal role of the state in providing essential public goods and services to the people. 32. The BOD should state that the private sectors participation in development programs and policy formulation should be premised on their binding commitment to human rights, environmental protection, and the highest standards of transparency and public accountability.

33. Before the BOD suggests aid be blended with private flows it should call for independent research to evaluate the impact of this kind of financing instrument on the living and working conditions of people living in poverty. When promoting PPP, the BOD should also be explicit about the need to untie all aid provided through this channel and support local procurement instead. 34. In order to guarantee effectiveness of Aid for Trade (AfT)), AfT should be entirely delinked from current WTO rules and regulations, which severely limit policy space in developing countries and fundamentally undermine national development strategies. All AfT assistance must respect aid and development effectiveness principles (i.e. rights-based, democratic and country driven, and maintain as a universal rule aid untying). In addition, appropriate and strict national and international regulatory frameworks for AfT are required. Finally, there is a need to ensure regular independent monitoring and evaluation of AfT. Para 26: Combating corruption and illicit flows 35. On the subject of illicit financial flows (para 26), we support the call for asset recovery in the absence of mutual legal assistance requests and improved international cooperation. It should be strengthened by expanding beyond a narrow focus on illicit financial flows to incorporate a wider appreciation of the facilitation of corruption in the developing world by the developed countries; at a minimum, it should cover the core focus areas outlined by the G20 anti-corruption working group. The BOD should support strengthening anti-bribery legislation and enforcement, denial of safe haven to the corrupt, improved asset recovery and better implementation of anti-money laundering rules. Likewise, reference should be made to UNCAC, EU and G8 commitments on anti-corruption in addition to ensuring adequate protection to individuals and organisations exposing corruption. 36. The BOD should also commit to implanting safeguards to ensure private sector investment does not undermine development and human rights. These include a) effective anti-bribery laws to tackle illicit payments, b) requiring companies to disclose their legitimate payments to governments and c) adherence to international guidelines on business in conflict. Para 27: Climate Change Finance 37. We recommend that all climate financing mechanisms should follow aid and development effectiveness commitments and best practices; in this regard we appreciate the emphasis that the BOD places on the role of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). There must be mechanisms to ensure transparency, accountability and local democratic ownership of the usage of the funds, to ensure that the funds are directed to initiatives that have a pro-poor and gender perspective, are participatory, bottom-up or community-based, and prioritise most vulnerable people, including women. A unified system for tracking climate funds, as is for aid, should be established and implemented. The BOD should emphasize the importance of coherence of adaptation policies with human rights and maximum of participation for affected people, particularly women, (i.e. their representatives) in the design of adaptation policies, in governance bodies (e.g. transitional committee), in the implementation of adaptation programs and its monitoring/evaluation. Noting that climate finance will have to be mobilized from public budgets, innovative solutions, and private sector cooperation, such private finance should also focus on agreed policy priorities, with safeguards in place to ensure the rights and needs of poor and vulnerable people and to decrease inequality. The road ahead: partnering for progress towards and beyond the MDGs Paras 28-29 38. We believe that a fundamental reform of the global system of development cooperation is needed. Such a system needs to be inclusive, democratic, rights-based, equitable and just. Democratic ownership will be key in order to address the current imbalances that prevail. Membership and participation must also be reconstructed to ensure representation of different branches of government as well as equal membership of all development actors including CSOs, and with full representation of all developing country perspectives. 39. We believe that: Partnering should mean inclusive to the different development actors, specifically including CSOs; Monitoring should include the country level in addition to continued global monitoring, and the diverse capacities and effective roles of the different domestic stakeholders need to be assessed and taken into account; Indicators agreed no later than by June 2012 will have to be clear, and include targets and timelines to guide implementation and monitoring of commitments;

A mandatory indicator should be included on supportive enabling environment for civil society when it comes to setting monitoring standards in the context of democratic ownership, results and accountability as well as gender equality (see para 16 above); Consultation should include other stakeholders, for instance on the indicators or on how best to establish national frameworks; The indicators used to measure aid results should be developed through a careful and inclusive multi-stakeholder process with intended beneficiaries including civil society. The set of indicators should measure progress and impacts, not just output/activity performance. Indicators should be targeted at 2015 by asking for a report by mid-2014. The indicators should also take into account other internationally agreed targets, such as the Abuja Declaration, Maputo Plan of Action, International Conference on Population and Development, the HYPERLINK "http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/ddpa.shtml" Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, A long-term impact of aid requires strengthened linkages and partnerships between all development sectors and increasing policy coherence with non-development sectors.

New Architecture 40. According to the current draft BOD, the Global Partnership may well develop as a diversified Ministerial body as there is no reference to the space that CSOs or other development actors will have, ignoring the role they have played so far in an innovative WP-EFF since 2008. The draft is ambiguous as to whether the Global Partnership is an annual forum or a new organization requiring statutory rules and approval. The BOD does not mention the future role of the DAC or the MDBs in a new institutional setup. It fails to make any link to the importance of the UN system and does not even acknowledge the work and role of the UN Development Cooperation Forum. 41. The BOD should urgently specify how the new aid and development architecture will ensure implementation of current and future aid effectiveness agreements. It should at the minimum make provision for a) coordination and integration with United Nations mechanisms such as the UNDCF, b) a transparent, multi-stakeholder process for determining the new architecture and its governance structure. The new architecture needs to include three critical elements at the global level: a) an inclusive, legitimate and democratic forum in which to carry out development discussions (the UN DESA or DCF would be candidates); b) a balanced representation on the Steering Committee, particularly from Southern countries and their civil society organizations; c) an effective monitoring mechanism tracking indicators that measure progress toward fulfilling Paris, Accra and Busan commitments (the OECD/DACs DCD seems the most appropriate place); and full inclusion with rights for CSOs in whatever forum is created. 42. Better Aid stresses, in line with the comments made above, that the new architecture be an equitable and fully inclusive developing country led multilateral forum that ensures legitimacy through membership of all development actors. This forum should have a clear mandate for policy dialogue and standardsetting on development effectiveness, will take account of the important role of the United Nations in those areas and will continue monitoring of the Paris, Accra and Busan commitments. Moreover, the laying of the foundation to construct a new architecture for development cooperation should be guided by the responsibility and accountability of all countries to universally-accepted norms and conventions. These are embodied in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration on the Right to Development, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and other international agreements that have been approved and ratified over the years.