The Reform of the Aid Cooperation Architecture- and the role of Civil Society Aid Effectiveness: From Paris 2005 to Paris 2012 Peter Lanzet, BfdW, for the first Faith Based Develolpment Organisations workshop on 25./ in Geneva

Timeline Official Process 1999 Marra kesh 2005 Paris 2008 Accra HLF III Busan 2011 HLF IV Civil Society 17 NGOs witnessed Paris 2007 Nairobi: Better Aid constituted 2008 Ottawa/Paris: Open Forum constituted BetterAid in Working Party on Aid Effectiveness Istanbul, Siem Reap, 100 Consultations CSO voice and vote in Busan 2012 OF/BA merge to CPDE with one CSO Steering Committee member CSO- Conference preceding Accra Paris 2012 Global Partnership 2003 Rom

Ownership Alignment Harmonisation Managing for Results Mutual Accountability Paris 2005, Accra 2008 Aid Effectiveness vs. Development Effectiveness Development effectiveness Aid De-Fragmentation Value for money- approach South South Cooperation Partnership approach CSOs Fragile countries Results and Accountability Conditionality Predictability New Thinking in Accra Areas of CSO influence in ACCRA

Civil Society Achievements in Busan? Finish Paris/Accra Agenda (2 Speed) Human Rights are in the Document but only regarding CSOs Enabling Environmnent in the Document but not strong CSOs form part of national Domocratic Ownership Civil Society is part of the new Global Partnership for Effective Cooperation in Development What BetterAid/Open Forum wantedWhat BA/OF achieved

Busan Outcomes OECD DAC lost, BRICS won, donors happy Commitment to “unfinished business” Not poverty reduction and MDGs but economic growth, strong results orientation, private sector Still focus on development cooperation and not on development as such, despite talking about development effectiveness, pointing out trade, pledging to leverage ODA in the financial markets. Recognizing actors as diverse as Civil Society or China as part of one framework of „common principles, shared goals but different commitments“ - therefore weak on Human Rights or on definite indicators and time frames. For Civil Society, Busan marks its graduation as a global development actor …. and Results: Monitoring Framework and 10 indicators with targets for Results 2.Civil society 3.Private sector 4.Transparency 5.Predictability 6. Aid is on budgets 7.Mutual accountability 8.Gender equality and women’s empowerment 9.Effective institutions 10. Aid is untied Narrow or large mandate (i.e. Post 2015)?? The Building Blocks

How Civil Society organized Better Aid Founded at WSF 2007 in Naiorbi, core group of Organisations Expanded into 32 global networks and organizations til 2011 Worked inside the fence Contributed numerous policy papers and publications Organized participation world wide Merged the CPDE Open Forum Founded 2008 in Ottawa Worked outside the fence to work on Civil Society Development Effectiveness Developed Istanbul Principles and Siem Reap Framework, etc. Maintained website communication Coordinated over 100 national and regional workshops Merged with the CPDE

The Structure of the Civil Society Partnership on Development Effectiveness Regional level Global level Sub-regional level National level NGOs FBO Labor CSO Plat- form Think Tanks Multistakeholder Process Private Sector Gover nment Partner- ship Donors Subregional/ Sectoral CPDE-Centres Regional Representatives of Regions Representatives of Sector Constitutencies 50 Member Global Council, 4 form FBO 16 Member Coordination Committee 4 Co -Chairs Independ ent Accounta bility Committe e Secretariat GP ED C

Central issues For Civil Society Partnership on Development Effectiveness Making CPDE effectctive in GP Making CPDE effective local to global Advocating: Enabling Environment Human Rights Development Effectiveness Post-2015, Sufficiency Claimate Change Existence outside Global Partnership? Challenges for the global Partnership on Effective Development Cooperation G20 model of development is detrimental to Busan, Busan unnecessary GP not well established, can be sidelined by donors (see structure) Not well known, is not a fully respected player in aid arcitecture, yet this is what it was made for Must find recognition for implementing post 2015, i.e. recognition for larger mandate

Why FBOs should strengthen the Global Partnership Approach It is the only global process with CSOs as members (partnership approach) It is a platform for CSO protest on enabling environment Has a Building Block links in which Civil Society can get involved Reference to Busan should protect and advance national Civil Society (democratic accountability/enabling environment) As long as UN is weak and not giving role to CSOs

CSOs and the implementation of the Busan principles: National Level CSOs are membership based, adcocacy based or service delivery based. The can perform different roles at their different levels of capacity: Building national stakeholder platforms Participating in and monitoring of Development (Cooperation) Policy Formulation, can be sectoral, at local, district or natioal level Watchdog role for grants and loans contracting in Official Dev. Coop Subsidiary program and project implementation Participating in and monitoring country led results and acoountability frameworks Country donor coordination platforms Parliamentary budget and other audit processes

CSOs and the implementation of the Busan priciples, regional, sub-regional CSOs active at this level need to have the credibility and the authoriy to interact with state and interstate government actors both on partnership as well as on consultative basis. They need to monitor events at the state level and making wrong developments known (Aid watch, Enabling Environment, Regional initiatives) Establish connections between national and global levels.

CSOs and the implementation of the Busan priciples: Global Interact with GPEDE on the basis of the steering committee seat Ensure realization of commitments strengthen GPEDC based on CSO- perspectives Support and monitor UNDP/OECD-DAC Implement and monitor CPDE priority plans, i.e. enabling environment, democratic ownership, post 2015, climate finance, etc.