An overview of the Istanbul Principles: Improving our development effectiveness as CSOs Canadian Council for International Co-operation – January 2014

Overview Aid effectiveness and civil society The response: From aid effectiveness to development effectiveness Principles for independent development actors in their own right The Open Forum process Key outcomes The Istanbul Principles So what?

Paris & the aid effectiveness journey Korea HLF-4 (2011) Monterrey Consensus (2002) Rome Declaration on Harmonisation – HLF-1 (2003) Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness – HLF-2 (2005) Accra Agenda for Action – HLF-3 (2008) Bogota Statement on SSC (2010) Dili Declaration on fragile states (2010) “Civil society as independent development actors in their own right” BUT “reflect on how [to] apply the Paris principles of aid effectiveness from a CSO perspective“

Evolution of CSOs and the AE agenda Two principal tracks Substance: CSO critiques of Aid Effectiveness (AE) agenda Role: Efforts to fit CSOs within AE agenda Responses and push-back Substance: Shift from AE to development effectiveness agenda (CSOs then donors) Role: Recognition by CSOs of multiple roles and need to develop own principles

Substance: CSOs and DE “…[DE] addresses the causes as well as the symptoms of poverty, inequality and marginalization, through the diversity and complementarity of instruments, policies and actors […and] deepen[s] the impact of aid and development cooperation on the capacities of poor and marginalized people to realize their rights […] ”

Aid vs. Dev’t. Effectiveness Charity Symptoms of poverty Human needs Short term results People as objects Women’s equality External inputs Trickle-down Jobs Donor driven A-political delivery Justice Root causes Human rights Long-term outcomes People as subjects Gender equality Existing assets Equitable distribution Decent work All development actors Politics and power

Development and aid effectiveness “Conditions for realizing development effectiveness goals must include measureable commitments to improve the effectiveness of aid.” So still need aid effectiveness AND development effectiveness Development effectiveness Aid effectiveness

Rejecting Paris…what next? Response to external criticisms of CSOs: Aid effectiveness (implementing PD) Legitimacy (impacts, representation, credibility) Transparency (to constituencies) Accountability (volunteerism) And internal criticisms Power in North-South relationships Int’l NGOs competing with local CSOs Real solidarity ? Multiplicity of actors and duplication

Open Forum: CSO Principles Objectives 1.Create an open process, through country- based, sectoral/thematic, regional and global consultations and multi-stakeholder dialogue. 2.Develop a common CSO vision on DE. 3.Agree on common principles of CSO DE. 4.Provide guidance on how to apply the principles. 5.Articulate the minimum standards for an enabling environment for CSOs.

The Open Forum 70 NATIONAL CONSULTATIONS 6 THEMATIC PROCESSES 11 REGIONAL WORKSHOPS 2 GLOBAL ASSEMBLIES INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR CSO DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS Istanbul Principles for CSO Development Effectiveness Statement on CSO Accountability Minimum standards for Enabling Environment Two toolkits: Implementation and Advocacy

So what are the eight Istanbul Principles?

So what? “We’re already doing this…this is nothing new” The global process matters These are CSO owned This is a political statement as much about rejecting Paris, as promoting Istanbul Endorsed at the Fourth High Level Forum on AE This is about evaluating and constantly improving our own development practice and effectiveness Now from norms to practice

Socializing/implementing the IP From Principles to Practice – Canada / global Socializing the IP – workshops, learning forums, icons, podcasts, calendar, code of ethics Implementing the IP – Case studies, test pilot Practitioner’s Guide and…now the HRBA and partnership workshops