RoA Global Meeting

Sida HQ, Valhallavägen 199 105 25 Stockholm, Sweden

Time Topic/Activity Resource Person/ Facilitator
08:30 – 09:00 Registration
09:00 - 09:15 Opening Ceremonies Mr. Bodo Ellmers EURODAD
09:15 – 09:45 Overview input on the substance of the theme Development Effectiveness Mr. Antonio Tujan, Jr. Chairperson, RoA Network
09:45 – 10:05 Panel discussion 1: Human rights, justice, gender equality and sustainability Mr. Rafael Garcia Mora UNITAS (on human rights) Ms Nurgul Djanaeva Women’s NGO Forum, Kyrgzstan (on gender)
10:05 – 10:45 Plenary Discussion
10:45 – 11:00 Tea Break
11:00 – 11:20 Panel discussion 2: Participatory institutions of democratic ownership, particularly ownership by those  living in poverty Mr William Chilufya Civil Society for Poverty Reduction Zambia (on partnership, sovereignty,independent development) Mr. Suranjan Kodithuwakku Green Movement of Sri Lanka (on sustainability/climate)
11:20 – 12:00 Plenary Discussion
 12:00 – 12:20 Panel discussion 3: Aid architecture in support of development effectiveness Mr Ruben Fernandez ALOP, Colombia (on autonomous economic development and aid exit) Ms Penny Davies Diakonia, Sweden (on aid architecture)
12:20 – 13:00  Plenary discussion
13:00 – 14:00 LUNCH
AFTERNOON SESSION  (internal for RoAN members)
Time Topic/Activity Resource Person/ Facilitator
14:00 – 15:00 Open Forum :  What are the key messages for the 2010 Report Mr Brian Tomlinson CCIC, Canada
15:00 – 16:00 Political messages that need to be emphasized in the 2010 Report Mr Antonio Tujan, Jr. Chair, RoA Network
16:00 – 17:00 Discussion on the logistics of doing the report and its promotion Mr Bodo Ellmers Ms Josephine Dongail (Secretariat)

Secretariat Report on the Global Meeting 24-25 November 2009 SIDA Headquarters Stockholm, Sweden

  1. Preceeding the 2009 ROA Global Meeting, a forum on development effectiveness was convened with SIDA as co-organiser at the SIDA headquarters in Stockholm.  The presentations and discussions during the forum informed on the discussions during the Global Meeting. The speakers in the forum were: Lena Johansson Blomstrand (SIDA), Ambassador Jan Cedergren (former Chair, OECD/WP-EFF), Antonio Tujan (Reality of Aid), Anders Pederssen (SIDA), Cecilia Alemany (AWID), Bodo Ellmers (EURODAD), Ruben Fernandez (ALOP), and Tomas Brundin (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sweden).
  2. Lena Blomstrand welcomed the ROA participants and other guests with the observation that the process of stimulating synergies with different organisations and different partners is extememly important to development effectiveness; and this forum is one such interaction that SIDA is trying to establish more of.
  3. Swedish Ambassador Jan Cedergren, former Chairperson of the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness for the Accra HLF, gave the keynote address. He opened his talk by highlighting his own reflections on Accra:
    • Accra was only a point of departure for a changing framework moving aid effectiveness towards development effectiveness, deepening the notion of country ownership, responding to demands for inclusive development, and strengthening developing country leadership in development cooperation.  The point will be to build on commitments with changes on the ground.
    • Aid is only one component affecting development prospects.  Sweden has a law governing the coherence of its foreign policies including aid that is strongly rights focused.
    • With regard to aid, the international community must make much more progress in changing practice with more predictable aid and promotion of democratic ownership in developing countries.
    • Civil society played a major role in affecting the outcomes of the Accra process, for which he singled out the Reality of Aid Network and its leadership.
    Ambassador Cedergren spoke of the need to talk more about development effectiveness, that human rights, gender, decent labour, etc. should not be merely add–ons, but must be given a more prominent role because these have a fundamental effect on development.  He called for greater accountability to development partners from the donor side and stressed the importance of promoting increased South–South cooperation, “We’re sending Anglo Saxons to solve problems they know nothing about. It would of course be better to have people from the South with cultural awareness and local knowledge.” He also gave an example from his current experience with the Adaptation Fund, established under the Kyoto Protocol. For the first time the Board for this Fund is dominated by members from the South, which he said is not popular among representatives from the World Bank and other institutions.  “But if we don’t give the actors from the South a chance to show responsibility, there will be no development at all.” Ambassador Cedergren also urged CSOs to look at their own effectiveness as development actors, which he sees as a challenge, and hoped that civil society would be as strong in their participation and contributions to Seoul as they were in Accra. Meanwhile, it was noted that there would be three key issues that were up for discussion going forward to the 2011 High Level Forum in Seoul, South Korea:
    1. The agenda is no longer about “aid effectiveness” (the mechanics of aid), but about outcomes based on effectiveness in development cooperation (“development effectiveness”), which must be about development impact in relation to human rights, social and economic justice, and the capacity of poor and marginalised populations to shape development outcomes towards their interests.  Effective development cooperation is, therefore, about democratic development and autonomous paths for economic and social growth.
    2. The second issue emerges from South-South cooperation, through which developing countries see the possibility to be free from the “donorship” framework of the donor/recipient and go back to some original notions of development cooperation between equal international partners (e.g. new international economic order and the foundations for the Group of 77 in the UN).  How do we reshape aid and development cooperation partnerships along these lines? This vision of South-South cooperation has already appeared in the Accra Agenda for Action as a result of the pressures from Brazil in Accra.
    3. The third issue is the urgent need for a renewal of aid architecture that is able to address and accommodate equitable development cooperation and that will truly promote development effectiveness.  In this regard, the role of multilateralism should be the promotion of sovereignty, equality and solidarity.  New or reformed international mechanisms need to be developed to promote accountability and responsibility towards these ends.
  4. In his presentation, Tony Tujan, global Chair of the Reality of Aid network, set out six principles that might be considered to shape an approach to development effectiveness, and which subsequently were used to inform on the discussions during the ROA Global Meeting the next day.
    1. Empowerment (empowering the poor to claim their rights, focusing on a rights-based approach for both enabling conditions and enablers of empowerment);
    2. Justice (dismantling structures of injustice and impoverishment at all levels, from family, caste, to international relations and governance);
    3. Sustainability (social and ecological sustainability, ecological justice);
    4. Independence and autonomy (going beyond operational “ownership” towards a framework based on national sovereignty and democratic participatory processes and institutions);
    5. Solidarity and equality (external partnerships in support of autonomous development and aid exit strategies and solidarity with the weaker partner, including policy coherence for donors); and
    6. Accountability and responsibility (social accountability and responsibility of each development partner).
    It has been noted that it is important to acknowledge that these principles do not replace “aid effectiveness principles”, but rather situate aid reforms in a set of broader goals for development effectiveness in international cooperation.  The principles of equality and mutuality translated into international relations become a principle of “solidarity”.  Mutuality as solidarity is about affirmative equality where the stronger party provides greater benefits and support to the weaker party. The principles of harmonisation and alignment are more clearly defined within a framework of solidarity, which is undermined by policy conditionalities and donor determined goals. These principles are all-encompassing.  Some raised the concern that a focus on “development effectiveness” was too narrow an entry point for proposals to resolve structural inequalities in the system and in international relationships.  “Effectiveness” may not be enough to achieve human rights for all.
  5. The panel discussants on Human rights, justice, gender equality results, and sustainability: assessing and reforming development policies for development effectiveness were: Anders Pederssen of SIDA and Cecilia Alemany of AWID.  Cecilia talked about the continuing need for human rights to be a reality for all, and that it should be an obligation of the state, even as the promotion of human rights is used by many as a conditionality in aid.  She also spoke on the need to go beyond words and to promote social transformation, and to integrate more southern perspectives in the discourse on development.  She mentioned that in Latin America, they speak of “endogenous development” which may be similar to autonomous or democratic development. Meanwhile, Anders mentioned about Mary Robinson making a statement about the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action as old thinking, and that “legal empowerment” is the new thinking. He forewarned that we might be too quick to jump at something new.  The AAA is fundamentally a democratic agenda and it can be useful.  While making the observation that the rights-based approach to development is not really new, he added that in a way, development effectiveness could be considered new thinking, however, we have to all work together to get the democratic agenda on the way.  He added that we should be very concerned about the narrowing of space for CSOs.
  6. The second panel on Reforming aid partnerships and the international aid architecture was made up of Tomas Brundin of the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ruben Fernandez of ALOP, and Bodo Ellmers of EURODAD.  Bodo posited that aid should be transferred directly to the poor, e.g., basic income grants, because ownership of the poor meant that the poor should get to decide how to use aid. He spoke of coherence and transparency as very important in the aid regime. Ruben added that all stakeholders, particularly those who receive aid, must have a voice in defining the new aid architecture in terms of new rules, new organisations at various levels, and new relations between these organisations. The South has to get its analysis out there to help influence the new architecture.  We need a change of mind, for instance, in using the term development cooperation instead of aid because aid presumes only one part has the need and the other has the resources, and development cooperation implies that both sides have needs and resources. Tomas stressed the necessity of dialogue, and the need of good leaders that can bring different stakeholders together for constructive dialogue.  He agreed that development effectiveness is the correct new framework because it is more comprehensive.  Meanwhile, donors need to harmonise their efforts with CSOs while respecting the independence of CSOs.  He also commented on the role of CSOs in the aid regime, that it was a huge milestone for global civil society when the ISG proved the value of inviting participation of CSOs in the official process.  He added his observation that there is now greater tension within CSOs now that they are inside the process towards HLF4, and this will have to be managed by CSOs themselves.  He also pointed out the necessity of communication amongst CSOs, with the private sector, with governments at various levels, and with international agencies.
  7. In the open forum, participants contributed their comments.  Some were on: the need to raise the issues of economic ownership – that without economic empowerment, there can be no development effectiveness; how African governments are looking at new donors that do not make human rights as a conditionality; that in adopting a new framework, it must be ensured that governments do not abuse this and lock out CSOs again; in finding new paradigms of development, ensure real dialogue among “non-equals” – those who make decisions and those who cannot; the need for a new declaration on development cooperation that encompasses aid, development, trade, finance, etc.; the need for concrete results without forgetting the political framework, etc.
  8. Brian Tomlinson of CCIC concluded the forum by summarising the crucial points of the speakers and participants.  He underlined the changing discourse within the CSOs and the donors as well.  Now, we are talking about new aid architecture, new development paradigms, endogenous development, etc. ; what it means to apply human rights and international conventions in practice, and; questioning the conceptualisation of coherence, for whom and for what.
  9. The next day, 25 October, the Global Meeting was opened by the Chair, Tony Tujan who reiterated his talk the day before on development effectiveness.  In Accra’s HLF-3 and the post-Acrra period, the RoA had challenged aid effectiveness, questioning what aid should be and what development should be.  For the 2010 RoA Report, the theme is on development effectiveness. How do we craft development partnerships that are premised in development goals? What kind of development partnerships should be promoted? We also need to critically examine South-South cooperation as it is currently practised. “Aid effectiveness” has reached its limits, and we should move towards reshaping international development cooperation, to look into new international development cooperation architecture.  We should recover aspirations articulated after World War II that had been hijacked by the short-term foreign policy interests of bilateral donors. It is expected that the 2010 RoA Report would look at the problem seriously, and examine what should be, and not just analyse what went wrong.
  10. Rafael Garcia Mora of UNITAS-Bolivia, and Nurgul Djanaeva of the Women’s NGO Forum of Kyrgyzstan were the presentors for the panel on human rights, justice, gender equality and sustainability.  Rafael discussed the need for a development model that is rooted from the grassroots, for instance, in Bolivia, 60% of the population are mostly poor indigenous peoples and their worldview is not of accumulating wealth to have a “better life”, but “just to live better”.  Hence, there is a need to consider people’s history and culture in determining people’s development.  Nurgul, meanwhile, underlined the continuing need to mainstream gender and women’s perspectives in national development, and posited the view that development effectiveness be shifted to local ownership of development by the poor and the women. Inputs from the participants included: the need to clarify what we mean by development and how to measure development effectiveness; the need for development sustainability; the need to continue stressing  human rights as the obligation of the state, etc.
  11. The panel on Participatory institutions of democratic ownership, particularly ownership by those living in poverty had as presentors, William Chilufya of CSPR in Zambia and Suranjan Kodithuwakku of Green Movement of Sri Lanka.  William pointed out that in Zambia, formal institutions might be present but there was lack of access of information and there was no real participation of people in development. He also spoke of the inappropriateness of development in the communities and the need for analysing the community so as to reach those who really need development programmes.  Suranjan shared the Sri Lankan experience of struggling with various types of donors.  While communities and CSOs had some space in projects from loans and technical assistance through environmental impact assessments and comments on proposals, it was not really a transparent process.  Now, there are emerging donors like India, China, Libya and Iraq. Again, there is no documentation and no transparency in the projects that they give aid for.  Due to the human rights violations of the government, Sri Lanka is losing its GSP preferences – this means that it is the poor of Sri Lanka who are being punished for the government’s human rights violations. There was a broad discussion that ensued after the inputs:
    • the World Bank should be bypassed because aid is filtered through the bank and there is no possibility of democratic development in this process.
    • regarding donors in the Asia-Pacific region, all the good principles on development effectiveness stop at the top level.  When it comes to implementation, donors are only concerned with efficiency, hence, the process becomes very technical, and it is most difficult to integrate cross-cutting concerns like human rights, and gender.  In the ASEAN region, there is the so-called capacity building peer-to-peer learning experience.  But what they are interested in is how to get more aid, not how to improve the effectiveness of development programmes.  Capacity-building is about how to get more aid, particularly loans. They develop capacity to attract more aid, and they do not care whether next generations will be burdened by the loans.
    • Southerners have signed several agreements, e.g., MDGs, PD, AAA, etc. but governments and donors still use the same old approach such as contract agreements, and international conventions are not internalised.  There is need to talk about the politics of poverty in the South to generate genuine political interest from all sides. An example was given on how in the 1970s, the UN decided that there were countries where lots of poor people lived there and then categorised these countries as LDCs. In spite of this, the number of LDCs did not decrease but in fact, increased, and even after all the signed conventions and special summits on LDCs to “solve” the situation, only two countries graduated from the block.
    • the issue was raised that for all the talk of democracy and human rights, donors continue to give aid to military governments.
    • in Zambia, a law was forwarded to constrict civil society involvement and this was observed as a donor influence.
    • there is need to elaborate the dialogue on democratic ownership as applied at the local level.
    • there is need to focus on the actual ways to follow up on the AAA; this is moving Accra to practice because development effectiveness is the way to go; there is need to make CSO voices distinct inside the HLF-4 process.
    • in enhancing people’s participation and democratic ownership, we have to organise communities to assert claiming their rights because it is not enough to have these processes which are not implemented in a meaningful manner.
    • women’s positive experiences regarding participation should be documented.  For instance in Zambia, women’s organisations go into communities where they are capacitated to raise their concerns when government officials come to visit.
    • there should be a study on Malawi re the food sovereignty programme which succeeded without donor support.
  12. The next panel discussion on aid architecture in support of development effectiveness was started by Ruben Fernandez of ALOP, and Penny Davies of DIAKONIA-Sweden.  Ruben discussed three main structures for a new aid architecture: new agreements, new organisations, and new relations.  New agreements entail work that makes sure that agreements in the PD and the AAA become practical and that development cooperation institutions should follow best practices. Furthermore, CSOs should establish political dialogues with emerging donors like China, India, Brasil, etc. to identify new rules for their behaviour in international development cooperation.  In terms of new organisations at local, regional and international levels, it is necessary to highlight CSOs and networks as critical actors in development, and the way forward is to emphasise how aid architecture can support development effectiveness. On the third point on new relations, Ruben said that information is crucial, and RoA sees to it that such information is produced, therefore, we should try to establish a global agreement on how the production of information will be useful and available globally.  This  communication will have to be strengthened between CSOs worldwide all the way to the grassroots level, hence, there is need for resources, political will, and leadership.Penny Davies posited four points to consider in the discourse: what do we want to achieve; who are the actors and voices; how do we communicate; where should we discuss these issues.  We must focus on results in terms of poverty eradication, equality, justice, and not how donors and governments are fulfilling the AAA.  This should not be on the technical results of aid implementation, either.  While we emphasise development effectiveness, we must still insert aid effectiveness in the discussion, and this means connecting to other issues such as capital flight and climate financing.  In HLF-4, we should name and shame governments who have not fulfilled their AAA obligations.  In terms of development actors, we should continue the trend of inclusiveness, and be able to think about the effectivity of our inside and outside strategy, while being aware of how to relate to the evolving new architecture, like South-South cooperation actors, or the entry of the private sector in development work, etc.  With regards communication and where to discuss issues, Penny made the observation that aid discourse suffers from technical jargon, then she raised some questions on what kind of aid architecture do we want to see, and what signals do we send in regards to what we want to see. The participants talked about the following points:
    • need to expose Indian hegemonic interference in South Asia, and also to expose the country’s discriminatory laws against the Dalits, from the inside and from outside India through CSO networks locally and internationally.
    • South-South cooperation opens up alternatives to the old donor club and this weakens their ability to impose on aid recipients; this paradigm shift can open doors to reform by inserting CSO perspective in defining new aid architecture.  HLF-4 is an opportunity to include new actors and a new agenda.
    • not to think of ourselves as “inside” these establishments and not behave as technical experts on development cooperation that contribute to expanding donors’ agenda – we are bringing in people’s voices and citizens’ mobilisation re their/our understanding of development cooperation.
    • must emphasise development results, but not to be caught in the trend perpetuated by donors of bringing results not to achieve the MDGs and poverty eradication, but merely for macroeconomic stability and economic growth.  Need to focus research on why most countries failed to achieve their MDG targets as reported by the 2009 UNDP Report.
    • during the EDD, no one talked about the global system, and yet, the negative results of aid is rooted in systemic issues.
    • while it is important to see that there is an emerging power in the global South through South-South cooperation, we should also see that that emerging power at the global South lacks democratic systems inside – and there is need for accountability and transparency from this emerging power from the South.
    • the EU is aware that there are alternatives for Africa to turn to like China and India.  South-South cooperation is positive, but we must keep on bringing up the negative aspects because we should not confuse it with the old model of cooperation.
    • it is clear that non-DAC donors have understood the aid problem differently from traditional donors, and many governments are attracted to the “uprightness” of these new donors.  What needs to be done is work within the country to form some level of better dialogue, and to mobilise the citizenry.
    • need to study further this South-South cooperation and South-South aid, and what they have achieved.  Private sector is for profit, and when talking about development cooperation and the element of profit is brought in, what dynamics are being brought forth?
    • geopolitical and economic contexts are different.  How can we build an equitable relationship with the South and North?
    • as discussed in the EDD, the over-arching goal of development cooperation is no longer poverty reduction, and this has to be debated on, because it is very important that we have to bring back the discussion to poverty reduction.
    • the issues have now become more complex and there is absolutely a critical need for dialogue between CSOs.
    • it is important that we think strategically in what we do to be relevant, how to defend aid while criticising it at the same time, and what we want to achieve.
  13. Brian Tomlinson explained the process of writing the 2010 Reality of Aid Report.  Key messages were asked from the participants (see below for the consolidated key messages).The final thematic areas will be determined by the layout and organisation of the submitted articles or researches.  It is expected that authors will provide the evidence that will be behind the message that we want to convey – we do not want messages without evidence in the report. The MC will write two chapters – the political chapter and the overall aid trends chapter.  There may be three or four messages to governments and donors, e.g., 1) Development cooperation is about supporting democratic development in the South towards the realisation of human rights of all, especially the poor and marginalised in society; 2) Development cooperation should help create conditions where the poor and marginalised can claim their rights; 3) We need to create international architecture for development cooperation on the basis of solidarity among countries and commitment to shared goals and aspirations; and 4) Beyond aid and global governance of trade, debt, finance and investments. The theme is development effectiveness - human rights, social justice and democratic development: a) ownership by those living in poverty: strengthening the poor’s participation - empowerment; b) human rights framework, including gender equality and women’s rights, and social justice; c) inclusive, democratic, participatory institutions as foundation for democratic ownership; and d) proposals for reforming aid partnerships and international aid architecture. Re the launch of the Report, the original plan is to have the global launch in Seoul in October 2010 during the governments’ forum on aid effectiveness, but there was a comment that we need an event that has more media coverage than this one. There shall be numerous launches before October 2010 and before HLF-4. Brian stressed the importance of referencing both negative and positive examples in the report.  It is vital that we have a balance between broader analytical point and examples we can use in advocacy.
  14. In concluding the 2009 RoA Global Meeting, Tony Tujan said that there can be an unlimited number of recommendations and it is here that we bring our concrete lessons, recommendations and proposals, and these become the bases of our messaging when we do advocacy.  We have the benefit of collective wisdom, and we need to structure these ideas together.  We need to seek out new contributions that highlight what we want to message.
  Reality of Aid 2009 Global Meeting Collated Proposed Key Messages from the participant-members Democratic ownership and human rights International community must develop a new framework for aid and international cooperation that is based on the application of international human rights standards to aid and development cooperation. This implies a primary commitment to developing country-led processes for determining development and aid priorities and recognition of the centrality of gender equality and the rights of women in achieving development goals. Democratic ownership is meaningful only when the poor, both collectively and individually, have the power to make choices and to make decisions on development programmes and the measurement of success of these programmes. Therefore development to be effective must be defined within the empowerment framework, locally initiated and founded on what the people decide. Development should facilitate the enabling environment for the empowerment processes, and particularly the empowerment of women. Development effectiveness should be measured based on the human rights framework using all conventions, protocols and instruments, particularly the rights of women and children and indigenous people. Create enabling conditions so that people and communities can participate in decision making as the basis for their development and empowerment. Ownership must be by those living in poverty, strengthening the poor’s participation and empowerment. It includes a human rights framework particularly gender equality and women’s rights and social justice. It requires democratic institutions as a foundation for democratic ownership. Development cooperation should be about supporting democratic development in the South towards the realisation of the human rights of all, especially the poor and marginalised in society. Development cooperation should help create conditions where the poor and marginalised can claim their rights and transform society for equity, justice and sustainability. Ownership must include processes and structures that provide feedback mechanisms on results and outcomes for poor and vulnerable people. Widen space for CSO participation in development processes including enacting enabling laws, creating deliberate forums and platforms for civil society engagement. Make strengthening local ownership, encourage poor, vulnerable community participation and empowerment in aid-administered programmes and project initiatives. A vision for making another world based on justice and democracy and the core social empowerment and economic emancipation of the poor. Collectivise civil action for more and better development aid. Democratic ownership supposees an equality in the participation of women and marginalised people in order to achieve social justice and realise human rights. Gender equality, social justice and human rights are the conditions to achieve development effectiveness. Governments, multilateral agencies and CSOs need to remove the barriers faced by persons with disabilities in their aid and development programmes. That in turn will improve access for all vulnerable groups in society. We all need to deal with persons with disabilities and their families in a more participatory and inclusive manner. That could serve as a role model for how to improve our general approach to development from a human rights based perspective. Make governments accountable to their citizens rather than donors. Achieve value for money through improved services that result from community empowerment and participation. Development effectiveness should be measured and assessed against the international human rights law framework. Rights-based development programming must hold accountable all those charged with safeguarding rights – states, non-state actors for any violations. A rights-based approach should focus on economic, social and cultural rights. Strengthen parliamentary oversight over development cooperation. Social justice should be the most important outcome of development. Capacity development Strengthen capacity of government, civil society and communities in rights-based approaches. Governments should develop mechanisms to build capacities of people and communities so that they can participate effectively at all levels of democratic institutions. Build capacity in institutions to use participatory methodologies to identify problems and build sustainable institutions for development effectiveness. Building democratic institutions and intellectual capacity building for CSOs to help reshape the new framework for development cooperation. Development effectiveness starts with putting in place inclusive democratic and participatory institutions. Focus capacity development to address weak governance and corruption. Women’s empowerment Increase women’s participation in development processes Focus on women as the central focus of the human rights perspective, the report has to take note of the confusions and struggles that have been going on relating to the values and practices of the state and civil society institutions and structures. Increase to at least 30% women’s representation in all financial aid and development effectiveness decision making and monitoring bodies and processes. Include gender equality and women’s status improvement as one of the core measurements (as formulated in the MDGs, CEDAW, BPFA and national gender equality plans). Build capacity to identify, collect and analyse differentiated impact of aid on women’s experience. Any and all development processes supported with international cooperation ought to take responsibility for women empowerment, participation and quality of life improvements since they are at the core of poverty and human rights abuses. Explicitly include indicators to measure impact on women in any programme or project. Set up a special fund for women’s rights as part of aid architecture internationally and nationally. Aid architecture Maintain and practice better partnership with greater equality for both governments and NGOs. Understanding the geo-political and economic dynamics of the regions – North/South; South/South diversities and differences and the commonalities. We need to create a new multilateral architecture for development cooperation on the basis of solidarity among countries and a commitment to shared goals and aspirations. Building this new international architecture should go hand in hand with transforming global governance of trade, debt, finance and investment to ensure policy coherence around supporting democratic development, human rights, equality, justice and sustainability. Money invested in cooperation by any country in another country ought to be clear and explicit in terms of its impact on development for the poor and for both actors involved so it can be evaluated for its achievement. Building an equitable partnership (South/South and North/South) is essentially important, but there are huge challenges. So how to deal with those challenges is important for our proposals. However it is necessary to politically analyse the social dynamics, the existing elements like the role of CSOs and private sector, northern and southern NGOs, official donor and lending agencies, aid dependent countries and less dependent economies. Drawing lessons from the project implementation and effectiveness reality should also be emphasised. New emerging donors should be asked to develop mechanisms and frameworks for their cooperation different from existing donor mechanisms in a reformed aid architecture. A framework for development cooperation should be framed to push CSOs position on South-South cooperation which not only covers aid and that includes development financing such as tax, trade, domestic economic mobilisation and people’s endeavours. It is necessary to analyse the power relations and social class strategies for South-South cooperation and propose alternatives on how to resolve the problems making countries more transparent and equitable under a new regime. Make emerging powers responsible through inclusive dialogue. Emerging donor accountability needs to be stressed. Institutionalisation of multi-stakeholder dialogue at national level is essential for promoting development effectiveness. South-South cooperation should be promoted, but this should also bring to our attention the political interests of the emerging powers in the global South. These political interests, with the lack of democracy and transparency can make aid within the South-South cooperation a tool to impose conditionality on the one hand and marginalises CSOs on the other. The role of CSOs in these emerging powers are weak and face restrictions which prevent effective partnerships and systems for monitoring. States and institutions should be made accountable for the development and anti-development models imposed on people. The unethical initiative of the new emerging donors should be exposed. We CSOs and other organisations in the North need to change our approach to partnership, take our partners in the global South more seriously and include them in our strategic decision-making processes. Set up a special fund for women’s rights as part of aid architecture internationally and nationally. New emerging donors should strive to become best practice donors, fully implementing the PD, the AAA and beyond. Autonomy and self-determination of communities, peoples and countries is necessary to chart their path to inclusive development. Development cooperation as a solidarity contribution and investment for poverty eradication and democratic development. NGOs and foundations should be considered as equitable development partners and thus their development effectiveness needs to be also addressed. Transparency Greater participation requires greater openness and information sharing that will facilitate the poor to participate in decision-making processes. Laws on access to information be enacted with emphasis in making the law pro-poor.  Where laws concerning access to information exist already, they must be put into practice first through deliberate civic education and awareness so that they ease communication of one of the key elements for development effectiveness. Investments in international cooperation must be practically transparent and accountable to citizens, proactively giving high quality information, interact with all stakeholders and have sanctions for not doing so. Accountability matters. No new rhetorical agreements. Accountability of partner countries as well as donors needs to be improved. Global Crisis Responding to the lack of transparency and the marginalisation of multilateral institutions by the G20 and the financial institutions, solutions must go beyond injecting money and subsidising banks towards radical reforms in the global governance system, making them inclusive of all the nations, limiting the role of IFIs and looking for a new development paradigm. Aid should not be reduced in relation to this crisis to achieve the millennium declaration goals. Aid reforms need to be linked to other international relationships – debt crisis, trade, that need to be addressed as well, if aid is to contribute to development effectiveness. SCHEDULES:
Action Timeline
International Launch October 2010
Global Meeting to finalise key messages October 2009
Authors writing and finalising their contributions November- mid-January 2009
All chapter copies, both sub-theme chapters and OECD country chapters, submitted to RoA Secretariat in IBON (give to content editor to comment and suggest changes, additional write-up, etc.) Mid-January 2010
Comments from the Content Editor returned to authors for revisions; authors send back revised articles February to mid-April 2010
All revised drafts submitted back to Editorial Board/Content Editor for second round of content editing Mid-April to May 2010
All final articles submitted to RoA Secretariat for copy editing First week June 2010
Copy editing and Layout finalised July 2010
Final sign-off by content editor and ROA MC Early August 2010
Final corrected proofs to Printing Press August 2010
Printed copies available from IBON Publishing in Manila September 2010
Copies reaching participating agencies (allow 2 weeks delivery) September 2010
International Launch October 2010
 
Name Country Organisation
1 MR Paul Quintos Philippines IBON Foundation, Inc
2 MR Ajith Tennakoon Sri Lanka Sewalanka Foundation
3 MR Rabin Subedi Nepal Nepal Policy Institute
4 MR Anil Singh India South Asian Network for Social & Agricultural Development
5 MR Suranjan Kodithuwakku Sri Lanka Green Movement of Sri Lanka
6 MR  Antonio Tujan Philippines Chair, Reality of Aid
7 MS Nurgul Djanaeva Kyrgyzstan Forum of Women’s NGOs of Kyrgyzstan
8 MR Ahmed Swapan Mahmud Bangladesh Voices for Interactive Choice and Empowerment
9 MR Don Marut Indonesia International NGO Forum for Indonesian Development
10 MR Ruben Fernandez Colombia Associacion Latinoamericana de Organizaciones de Promocion al Desarrollo, A.C.- ALOP
11 MR Vitalice Meja Kenya Kenya Debt Relief Network
12 MR Tirivangani Mutazu Zimbabwe African Forum and Network on Debt and Development
13 MR Brian Tomlinson Canada Canadian Council for International Co-operation
14 MR Bodo Ellmers Belgium EURODAD
15 MS Niina Pitkänen Finland KEPA
16 MS Penny Davies Sweden Diakonia
17 MS Maud Johansson Sweden Forum Syd
18 MR Lee Tae Joo Korea ODA Watch-Korea
19 MR Han Jae Kwang Korea ODA Watch-Korea
20 MS Hyekyung Kim Korea ODA Watch-Korea
21 MR Arjun Karki Nepal Least Developed Countries Watch
22 MR Patrick Tumwebaze Uganda Uganda Debt Network
23 MR Aurelien Atidegla Benin Groupe de Recherche et d’Action por la Promotion de l’Agriculture et du Developpement
24 MR William Chilufya Zambia Civil Society for Poverty Reduction
25 MR John Y. Jones Norway Networkers South North
26 MR ThomasHochgesang Germany Christoffel Blindenmission
27 MS Verena Winkler Belgium Eurostep
SECRETARIAT
28 MS Josephine Dongail Philippines RoA Secretariat
29 MS  Ava Danlog Philippines RoA Secretariat
OTHER PARTICIPANTS
30 MR Chennaiah Poguri India People’s Coalition for Food Sovereignty
31 MS Eden Gallardo Philippines Better Aid Coordinating Grou Secretariat
32 MR Roberto Pinauin Philippines IBON support to BACG
33 MS Hyuk-Sang Sohn South Korea People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy
34 MR Rafael Garcia Mora Bolivia RED Unitas
35 MS Rosa Ines Ospina Colombia Coordinacion Red
36 MS Katia Uriona Bolivia Coordinadora de la Mujer
37 MS Carlyn Hambuba Kenya African Women’s Development & Communication Network-FEMNET
38 MR Richard Ssewakiryanga Uganda Uganda NGO Forum
39 MR Demba Moussa Dembele Senegal Forum for African Alternatives
40 MS Rose Wanjiru Kenya Centre for Economic Governance & AIDS Africa
41 MR Peter Lanzet Germany Church Development Service-EED

asdas