Africa: "Aid" Gaps & Questions, 1/2, 09/07/08
Africa: "Aid" Gaps & Questions, 1
AfricaFocus Bulletin
Sep 7, 2008 (080907)
(Reposted from sources cited below)
Editor's Note
"Efforts to step up official development assistance (ODA) have
suffered a setback. In 2007, the only countries to reach or exceed
the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of their gross national
income (GNI) were Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and
Sweden. ... when weighted by the size of their economies, total
net aid flows from the DAC members represented only 0.28 per cent
of their combined national income. ,,,. net ODA (in constant
prices) dropped by 4.7 per cent in 2006 and a further 8.4 per cent
in 2007." - UN Millennium Development Goals Gap Task Force Report
After increases in aid in the period 1997 to 2005, aid flows --
already inadequate to meet needs for development in the context of
the slumping world economy -- are dropping again, This AfricaFocus
Bulletin contains excerpts from the just-released United Nations
report tracking international commitments to meet development
goals. The conclusion, in understated diplomatic language, is that
"while there has been progress on many fronts, the delivery on
commitments has been deficient and has fallen behind schedule."
This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains excerpts from the task force
report. Another AfricaFocus Bulletin sent out today
(http://www.africafocus.org/docs08/aid0809b.php) poses more
critical questions, with excerpts from a new book by Yash Tandon on
"Ending Aid Dependence" and statements from civil society groups at
the just-concluded Accra "High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness."
For the full MGD Gap Task Force Report and related documentation,
http://www.un.org/esa/policy/mdggap
For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on aid, global public
investment, and related issues, visit
http://www.africafocus.org/aidexp.php
Announcement
Welcome back to AfricaFocus readers after several weeks break.
There is of course a large backlog of topics to be covered - - I
won't get to them all of course, but I will cover as many as
possible while still keeping to an average number of Bulletins per
month of 6 to 8. For more in-depth coverage you can always use
http://www.africafocus.org as your starting point, for news,
analysis, and, now, for a rapidly growing AfricaFocus Bookshop.
More on the bookshop in coming weeks. For now, just a sampling of
new features:
see your book and it's available on Amazon, let me know and I'll
fix the omission.
++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++
Delivering on the Global Partnership for Achieving the Millennium
Development Goals
United Nations New York, 2008
MDG Gap Task Force Report 2008
http://www.un.org/esa/policy/mdggap
Preface
In September 2000, at the United Nations Millennium Summit, world
leaders agreed to a set of time-bound and measurable goals and
targets for combating poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy,
environmental degradation, and discrimination against women, and
placed them at the heart of the global agenda. World leaders have
repeatedly confirmed their commitment to the goals, and to
consolidating a global partnership that would improve the lives of
poor people around the world within the timespan of one generation.
We have now passed the midpoint between the adoption of the goals
and the target date of 2015. There has been progress, but in most
parts of the world much more needs to be done. With respect to the
eighth goal to create a global partnership for development Member
States have made concrete commitments focusing in particular on the
areas of trade, official development assistance, external debt,
essential medicines and technology. Such steps are important in
their own right but would also provide critical support for
attaining the other goals.
A number of United Nations inter-agency processes track whether
goals one to seven are being met at both the global and national
levels. But it has proved more difficult to assess whether the
global partnership for development is being put in place, and
whether international commitments are being fulfilled. For this
reason, in 2007 I created the MDG Gap Task Force to consolidate all
the available information regarding delivery on those commitments.
This first report of the Task Force makes clear that while there
has been progress on many fronts, the delivery on commitments has
been deficient and has fallen behind schedule. A shared future for
all will not be possible without globally concerted action and
strong partnerships. At this midpoint in our work towards meeting
the 2015 deadline, it is essential that all partners accelerate
their efforts to deliver on the promises they have made.
Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations
Executive summary
The MDG Gap Task Force has assessed the global commitments
contained in the framework of the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) ratified by Governments at the various international events
that followed the Millennium Summit. ...
The main message of the present report is that while there has been
progress on several counts, important gaps remain in delivering on
the global commitments in the areas of aid, trade, debt relief, and
access to new technologies and affordable essential medicines. The
weakening of the world economy and the steep rises in food and
energy prices threaten to reverse some of the progress made in the
various dimensions of human development. Strengthened global
partnerships are needed to avoid any reversal of progress made thus
far. In the countdown to 2015, urgent responses are needed to
bridge the existing implementation gaps and deliver on the promises
to achieve the MDGs.
Official development assistance
There is a large delivery gap in meeting commitments towards the
MDG target of addressing the special needs of the least developed
countries [and to provide] more generous official development
assistance for countries committed to poverty reduction.
Efforts to step up official development assistance (ODA) have
suffered a setback. In 2007, the only countries to reach or exceed
the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of their gross national
income (GNI) were Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and
Sweden. The average effort by the 22 member countries of the
Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was just 0.45 per cent
of GNI, but when weighted by the size of their economies, total net
aid flows from the DAC members represented only 0.28 per cent of
their combined national income. ,,,. Aid flows climbed steadily
from 1997, reaching a peak of $107 billion in 2005, boosted by
exceptional debt relief in that year. Thereafter, net ODA (in
constant prices) dropped by 4.7 per cent in 2006 and a further 8.4
per cent in 2007. ...
The 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness represents the most
comprehensive effort to date to improve aid coordination and
alignment with national priorities. Slow progress has been made in
meeting the Paris targets for 2010 that were set in 2005. The Accra
High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness that will take place in
September 2008 will provide an opportunity for accelerating efforts
to improve the predictability of aid, and for reducing aid
fragmentation and high transaction costs in the administration of
aid resources. Further progress is also needed in reducing the
degree of aid tied to the purchase of goods and services in donor
countries and in improving alignment of aid flows with national
budgets, thus broadening the policy space for countries to define
their own development priorities.
In recent years, non-DAC donors, developing country donors and
private funds have increased the availability of financial
resources for development. Partial records of total ODA from non-
DAC countries estimate an increase (in constant prices) from $1.5
billion in 2000 to $5.1 billion in 2006. Additional efforts will
have to be made to improve dialogue and coordination with these new
stakeholders to avoid further aid fragmentation and increasing
transaction costs among recipient countries. ...
Accelerated progress requires explicit actions, which would include
the following:
- Donors should increase aid flows by $18 billion (at July 2008
exchange rates) per year between 2008 and 2010 to support core
development programmes in order to meet the agreed targets by 2010.
In 2007 total ODA fell short by over $10 billion compared to that
needed to ensure a smooth path towards the agreed target;
- In order to provide a manageable path to reaching the committed
increase in the annual flow of net ODA to Africa by 2010, donors
should allocate an additional $6.4 billion a year at constant 2005
prices to the region (or $7.3 billion per year at July 2008
exchange rates);
- Even if the commitments regarding increased net ODA to Africa
are fulfilled, donors should increase further their ODA to LDCs
(many of which are in Africa). The total annual flow to LDCs would
have to increase on average by $8.8 billion (at July 2008 exchange
rates) between 2008 and 2010 in order to reach the target of
between 0.15 and 0.20 per cent of each donor's GNI;
- Donors, including emerging donors and recipient countries, should
accelerate progress towards the alignment of aid, harmonization,
management for results and mutual accountability of aid resources
as well as improve dialogue with non-DAC donors to adhere to these
principles.
Market access (trade)
Only slow progress has been made in meeting the MDG target of
developing further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-
discriminatory trading and financial system and providing tariff-
and quota-free access for the least developed countries' exports.
One of the objectives of the Doha Round of trade negotiations
initiated in 2001 was to address the needs of developing countries
according to a "development agenda". Seven years on, the failure to
conclude a development round constitutes the largest implementation
gap in the area of trade, and arguably within the realm of MDG 8.
International efforts must be redirected to complete the Round in
accordance with its original intention of being development-
focused, and thus of special benefit to the lowest-income
countries. This would entail prioritizing market access for
developing countries, especially the LDCs, and maintaining the
flexibility of developing countries for supporting economic
diversification, employment generation and food security. ...
The emergence of significant new challenges resulting from high
food prices and their impact on poverty and hunger has given
additional impetus to recognizing past policy failures in ensuring
national and global food security. This has underscored the need
for increased investment in agricultural development in developing
countries while at the same time removing market distortions in the
agricultural markets of developed economies.
To improve market access for developing countries, the
international community will need to take the following action:
- Redouble efforts to conclude the Doha Round of trade
negotiations, and refocus on the elements that would make it a
"development" round;
- Ensure that prospective bilateral and regional economic
partnerships provide genuine market access and entry for exports of
developing countries, and that they act as "stepping stones"
towards rather than substitutes for multilateral agreements;
- Prioritize trade and its links to development and poverty
reduction in national development strategies;
- Reduce substantially the tariffs and tariff escalation imposed by
developed countries on agricultural products, textiles and clothing
from developing countries;
- Accelerate the reduction of domestic and export subsidies on
agricultural production in developed countries;
- Urgently assess the regional and country needs for Aid for
Trade, and ensure that total available resources and allocations
meet those needs;
- Step up efforts to make the Enhanced Integrated Framework fully
operational.
Debt sustainability
Important progress has been made in meeting the MDG target of
dealing comprehensively with the debt problems of developing
countries, but additional efforts are needed to make progress
sustainable. Actions are also needed to reduce the debt burden of
countries that have not yet benefited from current debt-relief
initiatives.
As of June 2008, 23 of the 41 heavily indebted poor countries
(HIPCs) had reached their completion point under the enhanced HIPC
Initiative. There are still 10 countries between decision point and
completion point; 8 others are potentially eligible and may wish to
avail themselves of the enhanced Initiative. Post completion point
countries become eligible for further debt relief under the
Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI).
Debt cancellation for the HIPCs, together with high commodity
prices and strong global growth, helped to decrease the ratio of
debt-service payments to exports to 6.6 per cent in 2006 for all
developing countries. The ratio is expected to have fallen to 3 per
cent in 2007, thus creating an environment for investment and
recovery. However, less dynamic growth of the world economy in the
near future could reverse this trend. In recent years, a
significant number of countries that benefited from debt relief
have seen their debt vulnerability indicators deteriorate, in part
because they still face significant development financing
challenges. Of the HIPCs, 21 (including 14 at post-completion
point) are considered to be at moderate-to-high risk of falling
back into debt distress; 10 HIPCs (mostly those at pre-completion
point) are currently considered to be in debt distress. ...
Despite HIPC and MDRI debt relief and corresponding increases in
social expenditures, a large number of developing countries still
spend more on debt servicing than on public education or health. In
2006, 10 developing countries spent more on debt service than on
public education, and in 52 countries debt servicing amounted to
more than the public health budget. Additional concessionary
resources should be made available to vulnerable countries, and new
efforts made to relieve the debt burdens of countries that are not
part of the HIPC Initiative, including the establishment of a
sovereign debt arbitration mechanism for countries under severe
debt distress.
The framework for assessing debt sustainability should be kept
under review. Even low levels of debt may not be sustainable if
debt servicing crowds out public spending for the MDGs. Continued
technical assistance and greater coordination is needed to support
countries in strengthening their debt-management capacity.
Specific actions to improve the external debt sustainability of
countries include:
- Mobilizing additional donor resources to facilitate debt relief
in some HIPCs which have not yet reached completion point;
- Encouraging non Paris Club official bilateral and private
creditors to provide relief on HIPC-comparable terms on eligible
outstanding debt;
- Continuing to review and refine the currently
employed Debt Sustainability Framework;
- Establishing an orderly sovereign debt restructuring process for
non-HIPCs experiencing debt distress.
Access to affordable essential medicines
The MDG target that aims, in cooperation with pharmaceutical
companies, [to] provide access to affordable essential drugs in
developing countries has served to mobilize resources and improve
coordination aimed at increasing access to essential drugs and
treatments to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in many
countries. Access to essential medicines in developing countries,
however, is far from adequate.
Part of the difficulty in assessing progress towards this
commitment is the lack of a defined quantitative target. Efforts in
defining such a target will improve the accountability of global
actions to expand sustainable access to essential drugs.
Information available in a number of countries suggests the
existence of large gaps in the availability of medicines in both
the public and private sectors as well as a wide variation in
prices much higher than the international reference prices
(IRPs) which render essential medicines unaffordable to poor
people. New World Health Organization (WHO) estimates show that
public sector availability of essential medicines covers only one
third of needs, while private sector availability covers about two
thirds. The prices people pay for lowest-priced generic medicines
vary from 2.5 to 6.5 times the IRPs in the public and private
sectors, respectively. The fact that some developing countries have
better availability and lower prices shows that access to quality,
assured, affordable essential medicines can be improved through
stronger partnership among governments, pharmaceutical companies
and civil society, including consumers.
Accelerated progress requires more forceful national and global
actions in a number of areas, including:
At the national level:
- Eliminating taxes and duties on essential medicines;
- Updating national policy on medicines;
- Updating the national list of essential medicines;
- Adopting generic substitution policies for essential medicines;
- Seeking ways to reduce trade and distribution markups on prices
of essential medicines;
- Ensuring adequate availability of essential medicines in public
health care facilities;
- Regularly monitoring medicine prices and availability;
At the global level:
- Encouraging pharmaceutical companies to apply differential
pricing practices to reduce prices of essential medicines in
developing countries where generic equivalents are not available;
- Enhancing the promotion of the production of generic medicines
and removing barriers to uptake;
- Increasing funding for research and development in areas of
medicines relevant to developing countries, including children's
dosage forms and most neglected diseases.
Access to new technologies
The MDG target that aims, in cooperation with the private sector,
[to] make available the benefits of new technologies, especially
information and communications, has seen rapid progress in bridging
the gap in the mobile phone sector, but large gaps remain in
improving access to key technology (Internet with broadband access
being a good example) that is essential to increasing productivity,
sustaining economic growth and improving service delivery in such
areas as health and education.
Part of the difficulty in assessing progress in this area is the
lack of numerical targets regarding delivery on global commitments.
While there has been significant expansion of mobile telephony and
computers in developing countries, the digital divide in the access
to modern technology is widening between developed and developing
countries. Deficits in complementary infrastructure, such as
limited coverage of electricity supply in the low-income developing
countries, are preventing faster penetration of information and
communication technologies (ICT).
Recent emerging issues in development require stronger commitments
and development cooperation. The recent food crisis and the
challenges of climate change facing developing countries require
more flexible approaches to accelerating the transfer of technology
for agricultural development, improved access to essential
medicines and adaptation to climate change.
Actions required to expand the access to technology for development
include:
- Formulating national ICT strategies aligned with broader
development strategies;
- Introducing more flexibility in relation to Trade-Related
Intellectual Property Rights to accelerate the diffusion of
technology for development to developing countries, including that
related to renewable energy and adaptation to climate change;
- Increasing efforts to expand both basic infrastructure ( such
as electricity supply) and ICT-facilitating infrastructure,
especially in low-income countries;
- Creating incentives for the private sector to develop
technologies relevant to people in low-income countries, including
those that address issues of climate change adaptation and
renewable energy;
- Applying more widespread differential pricing practices to reduce
the costs of key technology in developing countries in order to
make access affordable to all.
Africa: "Aid" Gaps & Questions, 2
AfricaFocus Bulletin
Sep 7, 2008 (080907)
(Reposted from sources cited below)
Editor's Note
"An exit strategy from aid dependence requires a radical shift both
in the mindset and in the development strategy of countries
dependent on aid, and a deeper and direct involvement of people in
their own development. It also requires a radical and fundamental
restructuring of the institutional aid architecture at the global
level." - Benjamin Mkapa, President of Tanzania 1995-2005
The issue about "aid," almost everyone agrees, is not just
quantity, but quality. But what determines quality, and who should
make those judgments? Answers to these questions, argues Yash
Tandon in a new book, require rethinking the "aid" system
fundamentally. As noted by civil society organizations at a
parallel session to the official OECD "High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness" (http://tinyurl.com/6z3rog), the "donors" are still
tinkering with superficial changes rather than confronting these
fundamental issues.
This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains excerpts from the preface to
Tandon's book Ending Aid Dependence, by President Mkapa, and from
the final chapter of the book. It also contains excerpts from civil
society statements at Accra.
Another AfricaFocus Bulletin sent out today contains excerpts from
a report to the UN Secretary-General on gaps in meeting
international commitments to development.
For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on aid and global public
investment, visit http://www.africafocus.org/aidexp.php
For additional background, see
http://www.choike.org
http://www.pambazuka.org
and
http://betteraid.org
For an earlier article raising similar issues, by William Minter
and Salih Booker, see http://www.africafocus.org/editor/aid0207.php
++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++
Pambazuka News 394: Effectiveness of aid or ending aid dependence?
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/issue/394
Aid: Rethinking Old Concepts
Benjamin W. Mkapa, President of Tanzania 1995-2005
The following is the foreword to Yash Tandon's new book, Ending Aid
Dependence, published by Fahamu Books, September 2008. For more
information please visit, http://www.fahamu.org/publications.
The primary and long-term objective of this monograph is to
initiate a debate on development aid, and to lay out a doable
strategy for ending aid dependence. An exit strategy from aid
dependence requires a radical shift both in the mindset and in the
development strategy of countries dependent on aid, and a deeper
and direct involvement of people in their own development. It also
requires a radical and fundamental restructuring of the
institutional aid architecture at the global level.
A more immediate objective is to start a dialogue with the OECD's
Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which forms the basis of a
high level meeting in September 2008 in Accra, and to caution the
developing countries against endorsing the Accra Action Agenda (the
'Triple A') offered by the OECD. If adopted, it could subject the
recipients to a discipline of collective control by the donors
right down to the village level. And this will especially affect
the present donor-dependent countries, in particular the poorer and
more vulnerable countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the
Caribbean. ...Beyond the Paris Declaration, there is still the
question: What then? There has to be a strategy for ending aid
dependence, to exit from it.
There are countries in the South that have more or less graduated
out of aid, such as India, China, Brazil and Malaysia, and there
are others which will soon self-propel themselves out of aid
dependence. In fact, aid was never a strong component in the
development of either India or China. They have been reliant on
their own domestic savings and the development of a domestic market
through the protection of local enterprises and local innovation.
They have opened themselves up in recent years to the challenge of
globalisation and foreign competition only after ensuring that
their own markets were strong enough. Brazil, on the other hand,
was an aid-dependent country until only recently. Both Brazil and
Malaysia have succeeded in ending their aid dependence through
strong nationally oriented investment and trade policies. These
included supporting and protecting the domestic market and export
promotion, as well as the currency, fiscal and monetary policies
that go with them.
In an earlier period, during the 1960s and 1970s, the so-called
tiger economies of Korea, Singapore, Taiwan-China and Hong Kong
ended their aid dependence mainly in the context of the Cold War.
These countries were able to use the opportunity provided by the
Cold War not only to draw substantial capital from the West, mainly
the US, but also to build their production, infra-structural
facilities (banking, finance, transport, communications, etc) and
export capacity. They took advantage of the relatively open US
market to export the products of their early manufacturing growth.
They benefited from the fact that the US needed them to fight
communism in that part of the world. This enabled them to initiate
state-supported industrialisation without having to account to
institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, to import
technology without having to pay huge fees for intellectual
property rights, and to build strong reserve funds.
This book is not about them, although valuable lessons can be
learnt from them. We are now living in a different period of
history. This book is about countries that were neither able to
take advantage of the Cold War period, nor had the benefit of a
large domestic market and entrepreneurial class to develop an
endogenous development strategy. We are therefore talking largely
about the hundred or so countries that fall within the
classification of least developed countries (LDCs), the
middle-income countries that are not LDCs but are still struggling
to become economically independent from foreign aid, and the
vulnerable, small and island economies. Geographically, these
countries occupy the huge land mass of Africa, large parts of Asia
and Latin America, the Caribbean and the Pacific islands.
The message of this book needs to be seriously considered and
debated by all those that are interested in the development of the
countries of the South. If this means the rethinking of old
concepts and methods of work, then let it be so.
The Future of Aid
Yash Tandon
*Yash Tandon is the executive director of the South Centre, Geneva,
an intergovernmental think tank of the developing countries.
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/issue/394
The following is an excerpt from the concluding chapter of Yash
Tandon's new book, Ending Aid Dependence, published by Fahamu
Books, September 2008. For more information please visit,
http://www.fahamu.org/publications. The book is not yet in stock at
Amazon or Amazon.uk, but can be ordered from Fahamu or from the
Africa Book Centre (http://www.africabookcentre.com).
For far too long the debate on development aid has been constrained
by conceptual traps and the limitations of the definitions provided
by the donors. If the recipients or beneficiaries of aid are to own
the process, as present trends in the development literature sug
gest, then the conceptual reframing of the issues must itself
change its location from the North to the South.
The conceptual starting point is not aid but development. The horse
of development must be put before the cart of aid. Growth,
admittedly, is an important aspect of development ,,,
The most critical aspect of our definition of development is its
political economy and historical context. The developing countries
have gained their political independence, but in most cases they
are still trapped in an asymmetrical economic, power and knowledge
relationship with the former colonial powers that continue to
dominate the process of globalisation, and the institutions of
global governance (the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, WIPO, WCO,
OECD, EU Commission, etc). The developing countries are making
heroic efforts to disengage from this lock-in situation (demanding
policy space, for example). Some of them (the so-called newly
emerging industrialised countries of the South) have indeed
succeeded or partly succeeded, but the bulk of the developing
countries are still trapped in the shackles of history. Africa,
especially, is identified as a continent that has not fared well.
>From this trap, Africa and others can liberate themselves only if
they take matters of development into their own hands and do not
leave it to aid and its delimiting and colonising conditionalities,
such as the structural adjustment programmes of the IMF and the
World Bank, and now the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.
In other words, the national project, the project for
self-determination, is still on the agenda of political action for
developing countries. Its counter, the imperial project, is also
still alive, but gradually weakening. Its ideology the Washington
consensus and globalisation crafted after the dominant paradigm of
free market liberalism and Western systems of governance, democracy
and the rule of law, has lost credibility and legitimacy.
This is not to undervalue the importance of democracy or the rule
of law. Without these there would be anarchy and oppression. But
these values cannot be imposed on the developing countries from
outside ...
It is argued here that the present aid and development architecture
at the international level is an obstacle to the realisation of the
national project. Three power asymmetries - economic power,
political power and knowledge power - are deeply embedded in the
existing structures. It is a continuing battle for the developing
countries to try and secure policy space within the constraints
imposed by these asymmetrical structures. ...
At the end of the day, we need a truly heterogeneous, pluralistic
global society that is based on the shared values of our
civilisation, and the shared fruits of the historical development
of the productive forces of science, technology and human
ingenuity. Only on this basis can we build a global society that is
free from want, exploitation, insecurity and injustice.
Civil society statement in Accra warns urgency for action on aid
1st September 2008
[Excerpts. For full statement and extensive additional background
on the Accra meeting and related issues, visit
http://betteraid.org]
Introduction
2008 is an important year for development financing and an
opportunity to move the international community to a more
equitable, people-centred and democratic governance system. Today
1.4 billion people live under the new poverty line of US$1.25, and
the majority of them are women. The current financial, food,
energy, and climate change crises make evident the urgency for
action.
Accra is an opportunity to advance towards a broader agenda of
development effectiveness. The High Level Forum in Accra will be
followed by major United Nations meetings in New York and Doha that
will confirm the huge gap between what has been promised and the
lack of progress in the achievement of the internationally agreed
development goals.
Development aid is only one part of the equation, and has to be
analysed in the broader context of its interactions with trade,
debt, domestic and international resource mobilisation and the
international governance system. When donors and governments met in
Paris three years ago, technical debates masked deeper political
differences around the broader vision for aid. Some donors wanted
to hand a lot more power, a lot more quickly to developing country
governments. Other donors didn't. What was achieved was a
compromise and has been criticised for its narrow technical
approach.
It is urgent that human rights, gender equality, decent work and
environmental sustainability are made explicit objectives of aid.
We call on officials present in Accra to respond with urgency. What
we need in Accra are clear time-bound commitments to deliver real
results for people on the ground, towards the eradication of
poverty, inequality and social exclusion. This is a political not
a technical challenge, and should be treated as such.
What is our 'bottom line' for Accra? So far, the Paris process
looks like a failure. The 2008 Paris Survey shows that donors in
particular have a long way to go in delivering what they pledged.
Accra must deliver a major change in implementation and change how
"effectiveness" is measured by setting new targets and indicators.
All donors must set out detailed plans and individual targets
showing how they will meet their commitments.
But the Accra High Level Forum must also deliver real measurable
and time-bound commitments to address some of the problems which
are not adequately dealt with in the Paris Declaration. Donors must
take responsibility for improvements which only they can deliver
(e.g. untying aid and improving medium-term predictability of aid)
and all governments must increase the democratic accountability and
transparency of their use of aid resources, policies and
activities. ...
Who are we?
Over 600 representatives from 325 civil society organisations and
88 countries have met here in Accra to debate what actions must be
taken to reform aid. 80 civil society representatives have
participated for the last two days in roundtables at this Forum to
communicate those messages and ensure that our voices are heard.
Civil society organisations (CSOs) have engaged energetically with
the preparatory processes for Accra organising consultations in
every region, attending meetings of the Working Party on Aid
Effectiveness and commenting on drafts of the Accra Agenda for
Action. Although we have welcomed these opportunities, we are very
disappointed that our views on previous drafts have not been taken
into account, and that the Accra Agenda for Action as it stands
promises little change. ...
Our vision for change
Our vision is of a world where aid is no longer needed; where
poverty is no longer a daily reality for billions of women and men;
where decent work is a reality for all; where global resources are
fairly distributed; where social and gender inequalities are ended;
where indigenous populations are respected; where strengthened
democratic states fulfil economic, social, and cultural rights; and
where global public goods including environmental sustainability
are secured by multilateral international institutions with equal
participation of all countries.
We believe that aid can play an important role in moving us towards
this vision, and that more and better aid is urgently needed to
respond to the scale of the challenges of poverty, inequality and
exclusion. Aid will be effective when it can be clearly
demonstrated that it is indeed addressing those challenges. The
effectiveness of aid should be assessed under a universal, more
democratic and representative platform than the OECD/DAC, such as
within the Development Cooperation Forum at the United Nations.
Effective aid must be based on the principle of democratic
ownership and have poverty reduction, the fulfilment of human
rights, gender equality, environmental sustainability and decent
work as its objectives. When donors impose their own policies,
systems and priorities, they drown out citizens' and recipient
communities' voices, and they undermine the principle of alignment
with developing countries' priorities and systems.
Effective aid should support democratic accountability between
citizens and their governments. Democratic institutions are the
result of national processes for social and political dialogue and
donors should not undermine these efforts or the need for policy
space. Rural development, regional integration and decentralisation
processes in developing countries should be supported by donors
when defined as national priorities.
Effective aid supports the development of transparent and
accountable systems. It needs to be predictable to allow recipient
countries to make medium and long-term plans, and then be aligned
to those plans. It needs to be untied. Yet many donors continue to
deliver aid in order to promote their own interests tying aid to
the purchase of goods from their own national firms, or setting
conditions which promote their own economic interests.
At the heart of many of these problems is a lack of accountability
and transparency. There is not enough reliable and timely public
information about aid flows, or the policies and conditions
associated with them. There is not enough independent evaluation of
donor performance or the impact of aid on the ground. There are not
enough opportunities for citizen, and civil society organisations
to make their voices heard in decision making processes. This
constitutes a systemic obstacle for citizens to hold governments in
donor and recipient countries to account.
The Paris Declaration recognises many of these problems in
principle, but donors have proved unwilling to resolve them in
practice. Even where developing country governments have improved
their performance, donors have not met their side of the bargain.
The slow progress in implementing the Paris principles should be a
source of acute embarrassment and concern for the governments
represented here in Accra.
Both donors and developing countries have responsibilities to make
aid work. However, the process of improving aid effectiveness needs
to move away from conditionality, and not introduce new ways of
imposing conditions, which undermine the right to development and
democratic ownership.
...
Accra Action Agenda on Aid: Little Progress in Changing Deeply
Flawed Global Aid System
Written by Aid Watch Philippines
5 September 2008
http://betteraid.org
The Accra Action Agenda (AAA) endorsed by ministers at the 3rd
High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Accra, Ghana makes
little real progress towards making aid more developmental.
The AAA fails to address the most essential concerns with the
greatest impact on development in the Third World : democratic
ownership of aid, policy conditionalities, tied aid and the
foreign debt burden. The AAA instead gives undue attention to
technical procedures in aid delivery and management to divert
from its glaring inattention to the development issues that
matter the most.
The Paris Declaration of 2005 raised the promise of improving the
global aid regime. However the AAA supposedly aimed at deepening
implementation of the declaration underscores the deep-seated
resistance of donors to genuine reforms in the aid system. Donors
have effectively still reserved the right to set
conditionalities. They have not committed to eliminating tied
aid. They have avoided making concrete, measurable and time-bound
commitments to building democratic ownership of aid and
development policies. Donors have completely avoided the vital
issue of crushing debt burdens.
Yet "free market" policy conditionalities have gravely harmed
Third World agriculture, stifled industrial progress, and
worsened poverty and unemployment. Tied aid has assured donor
country benefits at the expense of local needs. Ownership has
been claimed more by donors and recipient country elites than
grassroots communities. And debt service by the Third World is
many times the amount they receive in official development
assistance (ODA)
It is an opportunity that the AAA has been compelled to at least
acknowledge these issues and it is welcome that civil society
organizations (CSOs) have an increased presence compared to
previous years. However this opportunity will be meaningless and
the CSO presence will be mere tokenism if there are no clearly
defined and effective reforms in the aid system.
AidWatch Philippines and IBON Foundation are among the CSOs
participating in the 3rd High Level Forum that demand clearly
defined and time-bound commitments to accomplish various targets
by 2010. At the minimum this includes: 1) a broad but clear
definition of ownership such that citizens, CSOs and elected
officials are central to the aid process at all levels; 2)
measurable commitments on the predictability of aid flows by
2010; 3) elimination of tied aid by 2010, with food aid and
technical assistance no longer donor-defined; 4) development and
implementation of new standards for transparency by 2009
including making information available to the public; and 5) an
end to policy conditionality.
ODA clearly remains donor-driven with the main objective of
serving donor foreign and economic policy interests.
Developmental outcomes, if any, are oftentimes just incidental
and only to the extent that donor commercial, political and
diplomatic interests are not threatened. In Accra for instance,
the United States used its clout to dilute language on ownership
and conditionalities while Japan opposed proposals to untie aid.
Recipient governments in turn comply rather than jeopardize aid
flows and possibly important resources for development.
The challenge remains for the people and governments of
underdeveloped countries to reject false aid that does not
genuinely reduce poverty, advance gender equality, uphold human
rights and promote environmental sustainability. Aid must also
not be a matter of charity from rich to poor countries but of
people achieving their right to development with all the
resources at the world's disposal.
from africafocus@igc.org
date Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 12:59 PM
subject Africa: "Aid" Gaps & Questions, 1/2
Page Editor: Ali B. Ali-Dinar, Ph.D.