Partner-country initiatives

One of the most impressive initiatives was the establishment of Capacity Development for Development Effectiveness (CDDE), launched in Manila and sponsored by the ADB, Japan, the OECD/DAC, the World Bank and UNDP to serve the CD needs of the Asia-Pacific region. CDDE focussed on strengthening national capacities for implementing commitments. More than 90 policy-makers and practitioners from 11 countries, parliamentarians, CSOs and development partners endorsed its mandate: to provide services on a demand-driven basis, encourage peer-to-peer learning and facilitate knowledge-sharing. The CDDE served as a valuable regional link with the WP-EFF. Many of its members were also WP members.

Columbia hosted a High Level Event on South-South Cooperation and Capacity Development, attended by more than 400 participants representing various stakeholders. The lion’s share of discussions focussed on SSC as a Southern-led process, complementing North-South cooperation. A Bogota Statement underlined the need to “mutually enrich and adapt the aid effectiveness and good practice from SSC” and to explore synergies with North-South cooperation. More than 100 case stories were contributed by different regions. Although these were useful, more rigorous evidence of SSC modalities and outcomes was lacking.

Capacity bottlenecks were recognised as a major impediment to aid and development effectiveness. A more inclusive approach was a prerequisite for success (Steering Committee of the Bogota High Level Event, 2010) to take note of the failure to invest adequately in CD due to lack of know-how; resistance to change by those with a vested interest in maintaining

the status quo; a less enabling environment in which institutions functioned; and weak national ownership and leadership for change (Abdel-Malek, 2010).

Another event was the Cairo Workshop on Capacity Development (Government of Egypt, OECD, & Japan International Cooperation Agency [JICA], 2011a), which discussed how to assess CD needs; make greater use of country systems; upgrade institutional capacity in partner countries, including fragile states; improve technical assistance for CD; use SSC as a resource; and establish CD as a policy priority. The importance of translating into action the broader capacity concepts was stressed, taking note of the essential elements for strengthening institutional and human resource capacity. The “Cairo Consensus on Capacity Development: Call to Action” was endorsed as a contribution to HLF4 on the subject.

A year earlier, I had launched a “Capacity Development Alliance” (CD Alliance) in response to what seemed to be enthusiastic support of CD.

Ingrid Hoven, then a Director-General at the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, agreed to serve as co-chair and generously hosted the first meeting in Bonn. We discussed CD strategies and action plans to mobilise Southern involvement in identifying real difficulties behind weak capacities, and invite solutions that could be shared with development partners for joint action. Capacity development was examined from different perspectives and a work plan to move forward was agreed (CD Alliance, 2009). Unfortunately, this initiative did not survive for long and was an example of ideas that did not have what it took to become sustainable, despite initial apparent interest and “vocal support”.

What about Africa? What actions did African policy-makers take? It was reassuring that, at last, this continent, which had been a lagging behind for a long time, was now moving to address its own aid effectiveness challenges. The meeting in Tunis was a good example. A gathering of nearly 200 delegates from government, parliaments and civil society discussed how to move “from aid effectiveness to development effectiveness” and debated diverse views on development cooperation as part of a process to identify a common African position as well as prepare for HLF4. Six elements were identified as central to the agenda: building capable states; developing democratic accountability; promoting SSC;

thinking and acting regionally; embracing new development partners; and

outgrowing aid dependence to make aid “less addictive”. The meeting endorsed the Tunis Consensus: Targeting Effective Development (Government of Tunisia, 2010).

Another meeting followed, in Addis Ababa, to develop a post-Busan agenda. Africa’s 54 member states stressed that aid was only one of many resources and should be used as a catalyst. They pressed for greater policy coherence between aid and non-aid policies; urged that the CD agenda consider gender equality, social protection and human rights; and encouraged adopting a more comprehensive approach to cater to the need for transformation and benefit from SSC experience. They also called for strengthening regional integration, including regional parliaments. Rwanda was selected as country champion to coordinate Africa’s position in negotiating HLF4 outcomes, based on a position paper that was due to be drafted shortly thereafter (African Union & The New Partnership for Africa’s Development, 2011).

A more issue-focussed meeting in Dar es Salaam dealt with Africa’s mutual accountability challenges (Africa Platform for Development Effectiveness, 2011). This concept was global but had to be locally contextualised. Accountability was seen not only in the aid context but relevant to other issues such as trade and foreign direct investment, as well. Improved practices required clear standards and the exercising of strong country ownership. Mutual accountability worked at three levels:

global, regional and local. As a practice, it was still in its infancy in most African countries; developing it as a more common practice required an evidence base accessible to all stakeholders to obtain information on what worked and what did not. Political leadership had to be mobilised to drive the process forward and act on its outcomes.

Asia-Pacific region: Asia continued to take measures jointly with its aid providers to accelerate implementing mutual commitments and made tangible progress. In preparing a common position for Busan, a Manila

“Consensus on Effective States and Public Financial Management”

was issued in two parts. Part I dealt with strengthening “effective states”;

Part II with public financial management issues (Task Force on Public Financial Management, 2011). For effective states, a holistic approach was advocated towards public-sector management, accountability and transparency. Partner countries were to exercise ownership and leadership of their development agendas, and development partners were to support

country-driven approaches to results-management. Development partners were urged to enhance their capacities to support efforts to build effective states, promote the role of core state functions and create fiscal space for growth. Capacity development, including strengthening oversight institu-tions, was to be an integral part of development strategy.

On public financial management (PFM), partner countries were to strengthen their PFM through credible reform measures, and development partners were to honour their commitments to channel more aid flows through country systems. Achieving these objectives required stronger policy dialogue to jointly take actions over the medium and longer terms.

Fragile states: A promising initiative? Concerns about the dilemmas facing fragile states and post-conflict countries had been mounting as a result of their increasing inabilities to make progress in restoring peace and security and achieving the MDGs. A significant step in this direction was the signing of the Dili Declaration, brokered by the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding – a platform representing partner countries, bilateral and multilateral partners, and CSOs. The Declaration built on a g7+

announcement reaffirming members’ commitments to the Paris Declaration, the Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and the Accra Agenda for Action. The Declaration encouraged members to take immediate actions to prepare an international action plan to address fragile states’ challenges.

Partner Country Contact Group: Given partner countries’ increased participation, they sought a platform to consult and develop common positions on various issues. The most obvious option was to revive the old PCCG, whose mandate expired in 2008. I was asked to present a proposal to this effect at the next WP meeting, which endorsed the proposal. The PCCG mandate was to play a lead role in coordinating, identifying and articulating messages from partner countries. It later formed a drafting team to prepare a partner-country position paper for HLF4.²⁰

20 Members included Bangladesh, Cameroon, Colombia, Egypt, Ghana, Honduras, Indonesia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, the Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Timor-Leste and Vietnam. Other members followed, including the Uganda National NGO Forum and CARICOM Secretariat.

The drafting team submitted its paper, “Partner Countries’ Vision and Priority Issues for HLF4”, after receiving an endorsement from political leaders, which was circulated to the full WP membership and to DAC members (OECD, 2010b). The paper served as the principal negotiating document to which partner-country Sherpas referred. Interestingly, the PCCG declined an offer to engage an external consultant to assist in drafting the paper – a practice used before in preparing the Accra position paper. This was another indication of their growing maturity and stronger ownership of their development priorities.