Consultation processes for Accra .1 Scope of consultations

The consultation processes preceding the Accra HLF broke all records in their extensiveness and intensity (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Working Party for Aid Effectiveness [OECD WP-EFF], 2008a).

A series of regional preparatory meetings in Fiji, Bangkok, Kigali, Colombia and Jeddah brought together representatives of partner countries, development partners and civil society, aiming to “deepen understanding of aid effectiveness issues, build ownership of the Accra agenda, and develop broad

consensus around key issues” (OECD WP-EFF, 2008a). Conclusions were sent to the chair of the WP-EFF as inputs in preparing for Accra.

DAC members met in May to discuss partner countries’ concerns about three issues: slow behaviour change, division of labour and untying of aid (OECD DCD/DAC, 2008c). Legal impediments and existing practices hindered DAC members’ ability to meet their commitments. Pressures were mounting for actions to remove such impediments and improve staff incentives. Division of labour difficulties generated high transaction costs and aid fragmentation, leading to calls for agreement on how to improve approaches to deal with these issues. More progress regarding the untying of aid required the adoption of good practices to promote more local procurement in partner countries and fully untie aid to non-LDC highly indebted poor countries.

CSOs, through their International Steering Group, discussed how to establish consensus on issues of concern, based on regional consultations in 2007 in Hanoi, Vietnam, Lusaka, Cotonou, Managua and Kathmandu.

More consultations took place during the World Bank / IMF Spring meeting in April 2008, the OECD High-Level Meeting in May and the UN Development Cooperation Forum meeting in June to identify issues for the Accra agenda. These supplemented bilateral discussions within the DAC and among partner countries to agree on common positions.

4.4.2 Working Party arrangements

The WP-EFF had full responsibility to organise the Accra HLF. Its members worked on various drafts of the official statement to be submitted for endorsement at the end of the meeting, reviewing each in light of comments received. This was a time-consuming but necessary and worthwhile process. The “final” draft was to be submitted ahead of the Accra HLF for comments by members and other stakeholders. All drafts were posted on the HLF-3 website to ensure transparency and invite comments. Some comments suggested changes to make the document politically more appealing, less technocratic and more ambitious. Other comments called for narrowing the “legitimacy gap” to encourage non-DAC aid providers to participate, stressing the contributions of CSOs as development actors and placing more emphasis on mutual accountability as a central topic (OECD, 2008f).

A Steering Committee was formed to advise on the organisation and contents of the HLF3, composed of representatives of DAC members, partner countries and civil society (OECD, 2006b). It was decided that the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA) would be pre-negotiated, with some issues kept open for final discussion. A “market place” proposal was endorsed to allow countries and agencies to demonstrate initiatives promoting aid effectiveness.

4.4.3 More voice to partner countries

Two innovations were introduced in consultation and negotiation processes, both of which provided more input by partner countries in the drafting of the Accra document. The first was an initiative by K.Y.

Amoako,⁹ who proposed the setting-up of a Partner Country Contact Group (PCCG). The purpose was to convene this group from about 15 partner countries “to play a strategic role in the negotiations leading up to the Accra Agenda for Action, ensuring that a coherent developing country position on the principles underlying the Paris Declaration emerges from various consultative processes”. The Group was to “agree on its role and strategy for influencing the process that will produce the Accra Agenda for Action.”¹⁰ Its first meeting¹¹ was at the World Bank offices in Washington, DC, in April 2008 – this was the beginning of my more active involvement in the “inner circles” influencing the direction of aid effectiveness discussions.

The PCCG met twice. The first meeting was to define its role and exchange views on partner countries’ priorities prior to the preparation of

9 K.Y. Amoako was former Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Africa and, at the time, special advisor to the Government of Ghana for the HLF3.

10 See personal correspondence with the author, inviting him to join the PCCG, dated 29 March 2008. An informal invitation had been delivered by the World Bank Cairo Office Director during a luncheon at the Mexican Ambassador’s residence in Cairo to discuss South-South cooperation issues.

11 Member countries included Cambodia, Egypt, Guyana, Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Mauritius, Rwanda, Samoa, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Yemen.

a position paper.¹² The second meeting reviewed the paper, which dealt with eight issues: strengthening country ownership; policy and procedural conditionality; CD; aid predictability and flexibility; managing for development results; mutual accountability; aid allocation; and the role of civil society (Accra high-level forum partner country preparation process, 2008). The paper (OECD DCD/DAC & Partner Country Contact Group, 2008) sent a clear message to the Accra Forum, identifying problems that had become “chronic” and handicapped efforts to improve aid effectiveness. It stated that:

 Partner countries would continue efforts to maximise domestic and non-aid international resources through trade and investment, and to reduce their dependence on aid.

 Aid providers were urged to increase the coherence of aid and other development-related policies.

 Top priority would be given to democratic country leadership, capacity development and use of country systems.

 Aid providers could help by reducing policy and procedural conditionalities, enhance medium-term and in-year predictability, untie aid, and allocate aid better.

 Mutual accountability should be based around managing for mutually agreed development outcomes.

The other innovation was the formation of a WP-EFF Consensus Group, mandated to negotiate on behalf of the full membership a draft AAA for WP-EFF approval. This Group comprised representatives of four partner countries (South Africa, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Ghana), four members of the PCCG (Colombia, Egypt, Sri Lanka, plus the PCCG Chair), four bilateral aid agencies (United States, United Kingdom, Japan, EU), five multilateral institutions (WB, UNDP, AfDB, ADB, IDB), and the chair of the CSO

12 The PCCG was to consist of 15 members but boiled down to 11, and the first meeting was attended by only 7 members due to visa difficulties and unusually tight security at the World Bank, which made entry quite a tough exercise. In fact, I almost gave up and was about to return to Cairo after over a two-hour wait at the reception if it was not for the appearance of the Cairo WB office director who was attending the Spring meetings and was leaving the premises when he spotted me and contacted the right people to speed up the issuance of the entry badge.

Advisory Group and Chair of the DAC. Although DAC and multilateral agencies’ representatives outnumbered partner-country members, the Consensus Group was a step forward in watering down the dominance of the former. It was chaired by the chair of the WP-EFF and vice-chaired by Ghana and the World Bank.

The Group had three meetings, during which various submissions were reviewed, including the PCCG position paper. An annex (OECD WP-EFF, 2008a) was prepared to compare offers / demands by partner countries and development partners regarding the priority areas identified by the PCCG.

These meetings were not without disagreements and occasional confrontations¹³; credit had to be given to its Chairman, Jan Cedergren, for maintaining the famous Swedish neutrality in handing conflict and skilfully steering the discussion towards compromise. The meetings proved useful in articulating different points of view, narrowing the gap between the two sides, and incorporating into the draft key issues, including use of country systems, predictability, conditionality, division of labour, CD and aid untying, among others.

4.5 A new agenda for Accra