EURODAD brief analysis of Final draft of Accra agenda for action (25th July)

The Final draft of the AAA (25th July) has been sent to the members of the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness on a no-objection basis. The Final draft has weakened with donors making even fewer concrete commitments. There is very little that they can be held to account for.

Process:

xThe Chair of the Working Party says he will take account of comments submitted by the 5th August that “do not affect the careful balance that has been struck in our extensive discussion process”. The updated Final draft will be circulated to all participants of the Accra HLF on the 8th August and will be posted online. Any objections will presumably be “noted” in this document

xAfter the 8th August, Ministers or Heads of Delegations can make “proposals for adjusting the draft AAA”. These proposals should be “exceptional” – i.e. points that would stop you from endorsing the document. The Chair will “alert other participants of proposed changes” – presumably in form of more notes - and any outstanding issues will be considered during the Ministerial meeting in Accra.

Final draft (25th July version)

The latest draft of the AAA has been further watered down since the 2nd draft that was circulated on the 27th June. CSOs, some donors and developing governments all raised concerns at the consultation with CSOs in Paris on the 8th July about the lack of specific time-bound commitments in that draft.

Almost all dates have been removed from the draft and there is no text left in square brackets. The current draft does not indicate that any issues will be open for negotiation in Accra – the Consensus group appear to be leaving that up to individual countries to register their proposals. We know that a number of European countries were keen for some issues to be open for negotiation to encourage Ministers to attend, whilst the USA and Japan were keen to close down all the issues in advance.

Very few of the comments made by CSOs in the “Response from the CSO ISG to the second draft” have been taken into account. But the OECD claims otherwise - both the cover letter to WP and the cover letter being sent to Ministers says that “the views of some 60 CSOs have fed into this draft”

Positive changes (primarily generic language that does not affect commitments):

  • Some improvements to the introductory first page
  • Stronger language on “eradicating poverty”; recognition that “addressing inequalities of income and wealth within countries and between states is essential to global progress”; recognition that women make up majority of poor people; recognition of not making enough progress
  • Some extra references to the participation of women throughout text
  • Addition of commitment to “adjust donor procurement procedures” in order to “promote the use of local and regional procurement”
  • Recognition of the DCF. Penultimate paragraph says “We welcome the contribution that the ECOSOC Development Cooperation Forum is making to the international dialogue on aid issues”

Key negative changes:

  • All dates have been removed, meaning there are now no time-bound commitments at all in the text
  • Commitment to broaden and deepen ownership has been replaced with one for “open and inclusive dialogue”
  • CSOs have been relegated to secondary place in developing countries commitment to engage other actors in national development strategies
  • Commitment to “step-up efforts to transfer management of aid to developing countries” removed
  • Donors no longer commit to “using country systems by default, where circumstances allow” but to “consider the use of country systems as the first option for aid programmes”. Whilst they commit to using them, where there are quality systems, a get out clause is included – they just have to explain when they choose not to do so.
  • Language on increasing aid where possible removed
  • Commitment to “reduce” conditionality removed. Language now says “agree on a limited set of conditions”
  • Very weak language on mutual accountability, no mention of independent monitoring
  • Developing countries are encouraged to design country-based action plans that set out time-bound and monitorable proposal to implement the PD and the AAA, but donors are not mentioned!!

1

The table below uses the ISGs original recommendations to structure comments on the current draft and compare these with the previous draft.

ISG Recommendation / 2nd Draft Text and Commentary / FINAL DRAFT
Recommendation 1: Recognise the centrality of poverty reduction, gender equality, human rights, social justice and environment.
The Accra HLF must ensure that the aid effectiveness agenda aims to reduce poverty, promote gender equality and guarantee human rights and social justice. The AAA must commit to a work plan for 2010 that would elaborate indicators and an inclusive process of assessment of new aid modalities in terms of their actual impact on the achievement of progress on poverty reduction, gender equality, human rights social justice and environment. / On cross-cutting issues, the draft (para 12) says: “Donors and partners will ensure that development programs are implemented in ways that are consistent with international commitments they have agreed on gender equality, human rights, disability and environmental sustainability.” / Added text in Para 3 “Gender equality, respect for human rights and environmental sustainability are cornerstones for achieving enduring impact on the lives and potential of poor women, men and children. It is vital that all our policies address these issues in a more systematic and coherent way”
(Para 13) small change – highlighted text added
“Donors and partners will ensure that development programs are designed andimplemented in ways that are consistent with international commitments they have agreed on gender equality, human rights, disability and environmental sustainability.”
Recommendation 2: End all donor-imposed policy conditionality.
The AAA should include a commitment to end all donor-imposed policy conditions and practice of using aid with foreign and economic interests, priorities and military interventions. The AAA should include as well recognition that such conditions undermine democratic ownership. The AAA should set out a work-plan to achieve ambitious targets to simplify and reduce the overall number of conditions (including triggers, benchmarks etc) attached to the programme-based approaches promoted by the Paris Declaration. / On conditionality (para 24) the title is good but the content is mixed. The title is “Donors will not impose conditions”. In the content they say they will “work with partner countries to reduce conditions to a set that are critical in achieving mutually agreed objectives and outcomes”. It is good to have language of “reducing” and “outcomes” in there, but the formulation means not much progress in terms of recognising the contradiction between (economic) policy conditions and ownership. In addition, donors say they will “transparently communicate all conditions linked to disbursements” which is good, and that they “will agree [by September 2009] good practices on conditionality that enhance domestic accountability and ownership” which is pretty vague. The 12th June draft has been pushed back. In it was language about a “limited set of mutually agreed actions” and about “monitoring donors as well as partner countries’ performance in meeting commitments” and about developing countries “defining outcome-based benchmarks as the basis for policy dialogue”. / Title “We are changing the nature of conditionality to support ownership”
No longer any commitment to “reduce” – but agree to“ limited set” Now says “a) Donors will work with developing countries to agree on a limited set of conditions that are critical to achieving mutually agreed objectives and outcomes.”
They still commit to making all conditions public.
No longer committing to agreeing “good practices” they will “review, document and disseminate good practice and will be receptive to contributions from civil society.”
Recommendation 3: Donors and Southern governments must adhere to the highest standards of openness and transparency.
Donors must commit in the AAA to the highest standards of openness and transparency. This should include: timely and meaningful dissemination of information, particularly during aid negotiations and about disbursements, and the adoption of a policy of automatic and fully disclosure of relevant information, in languages and forms that are appropriate to concerned stakeholders, with a strictly limited regime of exceptions.
Southern governments must work with elected representatives and citizens’ organisations to set out open and transparent policies on how aid is to be sourced, spent, monitored and accounted for. This requires that government ministers and officials be accountable to their citizens, with effective mechanisms of answerability and enforceability, based on improved transparency of information about government policies and programmes. / On transparency/ accountability.. The language on transparency is very weak. It say that “donors [and developing countries] will disclose regular and timely information on all their development activities so that partners can accurately budget, account systems and audit them in accordance with international standards”. This says nothing about publishing information publicly so that citizens can monitor aid flows nor about disaggegating information and providing information upfront (although there is a commitment from developing countries to deliver greater transparency of their budgets etc). The commitment is also only about the aid flows not about the negotiation processes. / No real change apart from addition of statement at beginning of Para 24 a) of “We will make aid more transparent”
Recommendation 4: Donors should support reforms to make procurement systems more accountable, not more liberalised.
At Accra, governments should agree to focus entirely on strengthening procurement systems to be more accountable to citizens in recipient countries. Rather than rewarding countries that introduce greater (if not full) liberalisation, they should support recipients to look at different ways to link government procurement to broader economic and social goals through country-led Technical Assistance. / On procurement the new AAA says that “Donors will promote more local and regional procurement by building on examples of good practice to help improve local firms’ capacity to compete successfully for aid funded procurement”. This takes liberalised procurement as a given and is significantly weaker than the 12th April draft which said that “Developing countries and donors will give preference to procurement of developing country goods and services, thereby promoting private sector development.” / One improvement on procurement - donors now say they will adjust their procurement procedures, but focus still on capacity to compete
Para 18 c)
c) We will promote the use of local and regional procurement by adjusting donor procurement procedures and by building on examples of good practice to help improve local firms’ capacity to compete successfully for aid funded procurement.
Recommendation 5:The AAA must recognize CSOs as development actors in their own right and acknowledge the conditions that enable them to play effective roles in development.
Donors and Southern governments should support the conditions which are necessary to enable CSOs in the South to fulfil their roles in the development process. CSOs need legal frameworks and mechanisms which provide for freedom of association, the right to organise and participate in national decision-making processes, and a free and open media. CSOs also need predictable longterm funding – donors should explore new modalities of support to provide this.
CSO are essential for creating a climate of social, political and economic change towards reducing poverty and inequalities and the fulfilment of human rights. Therefore it is vital to preserver their strategic role. / The language on CSOs (para 19) is generally quite good. There is language about “Actors in their own right” and “enabling conditions and funding models for CSOs”. The challenge for CSOs to apply the PD principles is still there but I think sufficiently nuanced enough not to open the door for donors telling CSOs how to do it. “We invite CSOs to consider how the Paris principles of AE can best be applied to CSOs, while acknowledging that these principles need to be understood and enriched from a CSO perspective”
Language on working towards good funding models for CSOs has gone.
Draft welcomesCSO proposal to engage with them on CSO –led multistakeholder process and they say that:
“We will seek as part of that process to: i) improve coordination of CSO efforts with government programmes, ii) enhance CSO accountability for results, and iii) improve information on CSO activities.” (para 20 c)
Recommendation 6: Create an effective and relevant independent monitoring and evaluation system for the Paris Declaration and its impact on development outcomes.
The AAA should create a system of independent monitoring and evaluation of the PD at international, national and local levels. At the international level, new independent institutions will be needed to play this role, in order to hold donors to account for their overall performance. At the national and local levels monitoring and evaluation should involve a range of stakeholders – including CSOs.
Monitoring and evaluation should also take much more account of the links between reforms in aid modalities and development outcomes and progress towards human rights. The AAA should initiate work to further explore these links. The AAA should also set out a working plan to develop a more comprehensive and participatory process, led by developing country partners, including Southern CSOs, for determining more appropriate indicators and measurements of aid effectiveness. The 2010 review of the Paris Declaration commitments should be expanded to include the outcomes of this comprehensive assessment. / In the final section “Looking forward” it says that “we will implement independent evaluation processes” and “we will strengthen existing international monitoring mechanisms to build a collaborative, complementary and credible system of mutual accountability”. But these commitments are left hanging. We do not know how or by when these actions will be taken. The 12th June draft included a commitment to agreeing on such an international system by December 2010. / Mention of “Independent evaluation processes“ has been removed.
The mention of international monitoring has been moved up to Para 24 C).
But it is very weak and only says:
c) Developing countries and donors will work together at the international level to strengthen existing international monitoring systems with a view to improving accountability for development results.
Recommendation 7: Introduce mutually agreed, transparent and binding contracts to govern aid relationships.
Aid terms must be fairly and transparently negotiated with participation and accountability to people living in poverty and inequality. Donors and recipient governments should agree to base future aid relationship on transparent and binding agreements including clear commitments by donors on aid volumes and quality, with sanctions. In addition, it is vital that effective fiduciary mechanisms remain in place to ensure that aid money is spent for the purposes intended.
These agreements should be independently monitored, as outlined above. / There is some language on mutual accountability, but this does not go much beyond that in the Paris model. / Only thing there is reaffirmation of PD commitment:
b) We will step up our efforts to ensure that — as agreed in the Paris Declaration — mutual assessment reviews are in place by 2010 in all countries that endorsed the Paris Declaration.
And incredulously in final section developing country governments are “encourage(d) to design country-based action plans that set out time-bound and monitorable proposals to implement the PD and the AAA”.
Donors make no such commitment to do the same! (have I missed something??!)
Recommendation 8: Create new multi-stakeholder mechanisms for holding governments and donors to account.
Multi-stakeholder mechanisms for holding governments and donors to account for the use f aid should be developed – these should be the real test of whether commitments to ‘mutual accountability’ and (indicator 12) are being met. They should be open, transparent and regular, with real room for citizens of southern countries to hold their governments and donors to account.
The ECOSOC Development Cooperation Forum could become a much better space for a mutual accountability exercise, with multi-stakeholder presence, and governed by UN rules. / On ownership (paras 11, 12) – there is a recognition of the need to broaden and deepen ownership and there is some language on supporting the capacity of all actors - including CSOs, parliaments, trade unions etc – so that they can engage in policy dialogue. But there is nothing about changing the definition, or the way that it is measured. And the only language about donors letting go that was in the 12th June draft has been lost. This draft said “(donors) transferring increasing levels of responsibility for managing development programs to partner countries”. / Mention of broadening and deepening ownership gone. Now talks about an “open and inclusive dialogue” (Para 13)
CSOs have also been relegated to second level in terms of engagement with governments on national development strategies
(Para 13 a)
a)Developing country governments will work more closely with parliaments and local authorities in the preparation, implementation and monitoring of national development policies and plans. In doing so, governments will engage with civil society organisations (CSOs).
But donors commit to supporting CSOs capacity to engage:
b) Donors will support efforts to increase the capacity of all development actors – parliaments, central and local governments, CSOs, research institutes and the private sector — to take an active role in dialogue on development policy and the role of aid in contributing to countries’ development objectives.
Recommendation 9: Establish an equitable multilateral governance system for ODA in which to negotiate future agreements on the reform of aid.