A critical appraisal of the Paris Declaration
By Charles Mutasa, Executive Director, African Forum and Network on Debt and Development (AFRODAD)

Introduction  

The year 2008 will be a crucial one for development. Several high-level events will take place and make the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) a political priority. The Third High level Forum on Aid Effectiveness will take place in September in Accra to look at the implementation of the 2005 Paris Declaration (PD). The Doha follow-up International conference on Financing for Development will be held in Doha from 29 November to 2 December 2008. Doha will take stock of undertakings made at the Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development in 2002. These events are expected to a greater extent to boost the international community’s resolve to achieve the MDGs by 2015 and move towards making practical what has since been agreed onto in development cooperation. The present framework for enhancing aid effectiveness is largely based on issues related to international financial and technical cooperation for development agreed on in the 2002 Monterrey consensus and the Paris declaration of 2005. This paper will dwell much on the Paris declaration since its inception and in particular the journey from Paris to Accra.  

The Paris Declaration  

The purpose of the 2005 Paris declaration on Aid effectiveness is to improve aid delivery in a way that best supports the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. It highlighted the importance of predictable, well aligned, programmed, and coordinated aid to achieve results[1]. One of its five key principles is mutual accountability in which donors and developing countries pledged that they will hold each other mutually accountable for development based on the other four principles of Ownership, Alignment, Harmonization, and Management for Results. The Paris Declaration emphasizes accountability in relation to parliament and other domestic stakeholders which can only be feasible with effective structures for dialogue (Tjonneland, 2006).  

The Paris Declaration of March 2005 represents a landmark achievement that brings together a number of key principles and commitments in a coherent way. It also includes a framework for mutual accountability, and identifies a number of indicators for tracking progress. There is a general recognition that the Paris Declaration is a crucial component of a larger aid effectiveness agenda that could engage parliament, gender groups, civil society actors, new lenders, global funds and foundations in a more direct manner. In the Paris declaration, donors and partners committed themselves to monitoring their progress in improving aid effectiveness against 56 specific actions, from which 12 indicators were established and targets set for 2010 (OECD, 2007a). Although the international post-Paris process has represented a significant amount of work (in terms of surveys, analysis, consultation process, evaluation of the Paris declaration etc), there still remains the need to ensure that the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA) is more ambitious, securing strong input and impact, reaffirming the Paris commitments, reflect on the mi-term review of the Paris commitments, and include guidance on areas where further progress is needed.  

Weaknesses

There are areas where the framework established in the Paris Declaration could be improved and strengthened, many of which will be the subject of discussions in the preparation of the Accra High Level Forum in September 2008. These include notably:

• Broadening of the subjects covered (whether or not this is done within the five principles or by adding to their number), possibly adding some additional indicators 

• Improving the clarity, monitorability and comprehensiveness of the indicators already established in the Paris Declaration, in order to ensure that all the aspects treated as principles in the Paris Declaration are adequately covered, as well as broadening them to cover additional relevant subjects

• Strengthening the transparency and inclusiveness of monitoring and, more broadly, of mutual accountability, which is among the least developed of the Principles (but arguably among the most important in galvanizing change, given the asymmetry in power between donors and recipients).

The Paris Declaration flags CSOs as potential participants in the identification of priorities and the monitoring of development programs. However, it does not recognize CSOs as development actors in their own right, with their own priorities, programs, and partnership arrangements. By taking a narrow view of CSOs’ roles, the Paris Declaration fails to take into account the rich diversity of social interveners in a democratic society and fails to recognize the full range of roles played by CSOs as development actors and change agents. CSOs are often particularly effective at reaching the poor and socially excluded, mobilizing community efforts, speaking up for human rights and gender equality, and helping to empower particular constituencies. Their strength lies not in their representation of society as a whole, but in their very diversity and capacity for innovation, and in the different perspectives that they bring to the issues when engaging in policy dialogue. (See 2008 OECD Advisory Group Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations).

CSOs operate on the basis of shared values, beliefs, and objectives with the people they serve or represent. This responsiveness to different primary constituencies explains the extensive diversity of CSOs in terms of values, goals, activities, and structure. It also explains the particular emphasis on human rights and social justice, including women’s, children’s, and indigenous people’s rights, which many CSOs take as a starting point for their development work. As the Commission of European Communities (2008) noted civil society was the ‘missing link’ of the Paris declaration. Their strength lies in the diversity of the roles they play. Civil society is a full-fledged player in development. It has to be included in the process and supported in its efforts to define its own principles of aid effectiveness. The same applies to parliament, local authorities, gender groups and others who are increasingly vocal in their wish to become stakeholders and actors in development.  

Overall, human rights principles and standards should be upheld and promoted through results achieved and strategies used to achieve Paris declaration targets and indicators. This should include among other things the up scaling of aid, the reorganization of partner countries’ institutions, procedures and national priorities as well as meaningful and inclusive citizen based ownership. As nationally determined priorities become the centerpiece of development assistance, it becomes critical to assess which processes should be put in place to negotiate them and how legitimate and transparent such processes are. This focuses on the quality of the relationship between citizen and state and the associated processes and mechanisms fundamental to achieving meaningful and inclusive national ownership.  

Synergies between the human rights and aid effectiveness agendas should be sought and further developed in the ongoing roll-out of “ Paris ” – if other cross-cutting policy issues such as gender equality and environmental sustainability are to be considered at the Accra Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (OECD, 2006). There is much potential for the international human rights framework and the Paris Declaration to reinforce and benefit from each other. The application of the principles and partnership commitments of the Declaration can help advance human rights in a changing context of more aligned and harmonized aid and new aid modalities.  

There are concerns that the aid effectiveness agenda established in Paris may become overloaded with procedures which themselves impose transaction costs but may not have a strong focus on sustainable development results. There is a need to demonstrate to political actors at top level clear links between the issue of aid effectiveness and the broader issue of development effectiveness (real results for real people), in order to persuade politicians in both donor and recipient countries that it is their interests to change the business of aid in order to ensure sustainable development results.  

Ownership, conditionality  and predictability  

A more analytical look at the whole concept of ownership reveals that ownership in the Paris declaration has been narrowly put as referring to mean recipient government domain. The expression “country ownership” seems to suggest that there is only one expression of ownership and does not reflect the depth and breadth of ownership that is required – not just by central government agencies, but also by parliaments, local governments, communities, and CSOs. Democratic ownership is understood as the broad participation of Civil Society and parliaments in defining, implementing and monitoring development strategies at national and local level in policy sectors. Tensions exist between the goal of Democratic ownership and certain conditionalities imposed by donors where those conditions limit the scope of Civil Society to act in the national interest. There is need to deepen the understanding of the concept as it affects the way the Paris Declaration is implemented .If the understanding is broadened it will obviously emphasize local and democratic ownership. Similarly, the notion of “alignment” should be interpreted more broadly to include alignment to the priorities of local development actors and working with all country-based institutional structures, including developing country CSOs.  

The absence of Civil Society inclusion and engagement in the Paris Declaration indicates lack of political will and commitment to social participation from donors. It has been repeatedly argued that this is likely to lead to an exclusion of already marginalized groups in many countries of the developing world – women (who comprise 70 percent of the world’s poor), the elderly, people with disabilities and the chronically ill (Fleming et al, 2007). Ownership within the aid effectiveness agenda should go beyond the Paris declaration indicator on national development strategies or poverty reduction strategy papers to speak to issues of good governance and engaging other stakeholders. Such an approach would see national government assuming ownership while other stakeholders participate and influence the process which is fundamental to the vibrancy of democratic rule and good governance attending to what politicians and technocrats normally ignore. By engaging their citizens and parliaments more fully in planning and assessing development policies and programmes, partner countries will increase efforts to link their plans much more closely to their budget and results frameworks.  

Ownership and conditionality represent the core issues in aid effectiveness – as ownership is the defining issue in development, while donor conditionality poses one of the gravest challenges to country ownership. The process of deepening the understanding of development partnership and advancing aid effectiveness reform requires further interrogation into the issue of ownership and conditionality from the Southern context of development as well as taking the circumstances and needs of the poor as the starting point as well as the final destination or goal. While it is clear the policy conditionalities affect ownership negatively, fiduciary conditionalities also need to be reformed to promote national ownership and alignment.

Messages for Accra  

In line with the discussions above it is important that that regular and systematic spaces should be provided for effective parliaments and CSOs’ participation in policy dialogue on aid and development effectiveness in all stages of the development process (planning, negotiation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation), and that this be recognized as standard practice that needs to be actively promoted at all levels from local to the international. In this regard, it becomes vital to put in place structures, work frames and policies that govern the relations of these stakeholders with government and donors. Much focus must be put on responsibilities and division of labour to avoid duplication and unnecessary conflicts (AG. OECD, 2008).  

• Monitoring and evaluation should also take much more account of the links between reforms in aid modalities and development outcomes and progress towards human rights. The AAA should initiate work to further explore these links. The AAA should also set out a working plan to develop a more comprehensive and participatory process, led by developing country partners, including Southern CSOs, for determining more appropriate indicators and measurements of aid effectiveness. The 2010 review of the Paris Declaration commitments should be expanded to include the outcomes of this comprehensive assessment.  

• It is imperative for donors to offer partner countries the predictability they need to plan their strategies, their priorities and the measures they take. Less volatile, more predictable aid is also needed for macroeconomic stability. Thus the use of multi-annual and ambitious but realistic timetables of aid budgets is important and vital for aid effectiveness.  

• There is growing concern at the decline in the levels of ODA in recent years. It is therefore necessary for Accra to call for the sharp increase in ODA by a number of donor countries, and call upon all donors to honour their ODA commitments and to improve the effectiveness of ODA in support of nationally-owned national development strategies. Emphasis here is given to the special importance of continued work towards durable solutions to the debt sustainability and management problems of developing countries. Demonstrating tangible changes in sustaining the momentum and achieving progress in the commitment is key and inspirational for both development partners and recipient countries.

• It is important that stakeholders adopt a more meaningful approach to results, making more room than has been the case in the past for indicators of social change, such as improvements in gender equality or the improvement of human rights and democratic practice, and for mechanisms of accountability to the intended beneficiaries of aid and development programs. It is time to quicken the pace of reform and good practices. It is widely accepted that significantly more funds are needed to achieve the MDGs. However, the promised scaling-up of aid will make less difference if it is not matched by more efficient delivery.  

• There is need for the Accra Agenda for Action to consider how it brings on board those that are outside its Paris declaration framework. Emerging lenders such as China need to be engaged not only with the view to win them to the OECD framework, but for coherence and consistence in global partnerships and development cooperation. Besides, there are also big donors that need to be part and parcel of the Joint Assistant Strategy at national level. If these key players remain outside these initiatives for aid effectiveness, chances are that they will bring similar problems as those brought by non-MDRI (multilateral debt relief initiative) creditors to the 2005 G8 debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs). Non-MDRI creditors used the debt relief to demand repayment from debtor countries or file litigation, thereby reversing the debt relief benefits of poor countries.  

• Both at Accra and Doha, it must be noted that aid is essential but not the end. Improving coherence and consistence in global development cooperation is of paramount importance. Pushing for appropriate reforms in aid, debt management and trade remains key to Africa. Without balancing these three sustainable development becomes problematic.

• Partners at Accra must agree to reform technical assistance to be aligned to national strategies and to respond to national priorities and build capacity. The right of recipient countries to contract according to their needs should be respected. More effective South-South forms of technical assistance should also be developed. At Accra, governments should agree to focus entirely on strengthening procurement systems to be more accountable to citizens in recipient countries. Rather than rewarding countries that introduce greater (if not full) liberalization, they should support recipients to look at different ways to link government procurement to broader economic and social goals through country led Technical Assistance.

• Develop multi-stakeholder mechanisms for holding governments and donors to account for the use of aid. They should be open, transparent and regular, with real room for citizens of southern countries to hold their governments and donors to account. As a universal and multilateral institution the UN, through a considerably strengthened ECOSOC Development Cooperation Forum could become a venue for the involvement of donors and recipient countries.   

Conclusion  

There is growing concerns at the decline in the levels of ODA in recent years. It is, therefore, necessary for Accra to call for the sharp increase in ODA by a number of donor countries, and call upon all donors to honour their ODA commitments and to improve the effectiveness of ODA in support of nationally owned development strategies. Demonstrating tangible changes in sustaining the momentum and achieving progress in the commitment is key and inspirational for both development partners and recipient countries.  

References  

1.AG. OECD. 2008. Civil Society and Aid Effectiveness: Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations. Paris. OECD.  

2. Commission of European Communities (2008) Communication from the

Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The EU-a global partner for development speeding up progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, Brussels, 9.4. 2008, COM (2008) 177 final.  

3. ESA & UNCTAD. 2007. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2008. New York/Geneva. UN publications.  

4. DFID (2005) Partnership for Poverty Reduction: Rethinking Conditionality. A UK Policy Paper. London: DFID.  

5. EURODAD, 2008. Turning the tables. Aid and Accountability under the Paris Framework. Brussels. EURODAD.  

6. Fleming, S., Cox, M., Sen, K., and Wright-Revolledo, K. 2007. ‘Aid effectiveness making a difference to poor and excluded men and women: the Paris Declaration and cross-cutting issues’. London. DFID.  

7. Foster, M. and T. Killick (2006) What Would Doubling Aid Do for Macroeconomic Management in Africa ? ODI Briefing Paper. London: ODI.

8. ISG 2008 statement. "From Paris 2005 to Accra 2008: Will Aid Become More Accountable and Effective? A Critical Approach to the Aid Effectiveness

Agenda." Paris, OECD.  

9. Johnson, A, Martin, M and Bargawi, H, 2004 ‘The Effectiveness of Aid to Africa since the HIPC Initiative: Issues, Evidence and Possible Areas for Action.’

Background Paper for the Commission for Africa  

10. Naidoo, K. (2004). The End of Blind Faith? Civil Society and the Challenge of Accountability, Legitimacy and Transparency. Accountability Forum (2, Summer): 14-25  

11. OECD (2006) Integrating Human Rights into Development: Donor Approaches, Experiences and Challenges. Paris: OECD.

12. OECD (2007a). 2006 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration. Overview of the Results. OECD Journal on Development. Vol 8, No.2. Paris: OECD.  

13. OECD (2007b). Human Rights and Aid Effectiveness. DAC Update. April. Paris: OECD.  

14. Tjonneland, E. (2006) SADC and Donors-Ideals and Practices; From Gaborone to Paris and Back, FOPRISA Report 1, BIDPA, Gaborone .

Subscription to e-CIVICUS: 
Do you have a friend who works for a more just world? Would you like to share this newsletter with them? Why don’t you suggest they register for a free subscription?

They can send us an e-mail to subscriptions@civicus.org or fill out the subscription form click here. Alternatively, please forward their e-mail address to subscriptions@civicus.org and we’ll contact them on your behalf. 

Comments, Suggestions and Contributions:
Please send us your contributions no later than Monday every week to editor@civicus.org. All contributions must be focused on civil society issues or have a civil society angle.