> Accueil

Eurodad analysis of the outcome of Accra

09 September 2008

On the 4^th September in Accra, Ministers of developing and donor countries and heads of multilateral and bilateral development agencies endorsed the Accra Agenda for Action.  This political statement was the result of months of lengthy discussions, together with last minute political negotiations to try and save the agreement from being a complete wash-out. At the last minute, a number of intermediary dates with actions were included in an attempt to accelerate progress and some of the language was strengthened. Hardly revolutionary, but not the failure it looked like it might have been.  Below is an assessment of some of the major issues:

Broadening ownership, (§13 and §20)

There is a stronger language – albeit no indicators or concrete actions – recognising human rights and the role of other actors in development.  Developing countries commit to “work more closely with parliaments and local authorities in preparing, implementing and monitoring national development policies and plans” and to “engage with civil society organisations”.  Donors meanwhile will support the capacity of these actors to “take an active role in dialogue on development policy”.  Both donors and developing countries also commit to “ensure that their respective development policies and programmes are designed and implemented in ways consistent with their agreed international commitments on gender equality, human rights, disability and environmental sustainability.” (§ 13) 

In § 20, there is a specific recognition of the role of CSOs and a commitment to engage with them.  This includes welcoming the CSO proposal to lead a multi-stakeholder process to improve their development effectiveness.

Use of country systems, (§15) 

This was one of the most contentious areas for debate, with strong resistance from the United States for any stronger language, but it was a key priority for developing countries with support from the Europeans. The Paris Survey shows that there has been extremely uneven progress by donors in this area, even in countries which have improved the quality of their systems.  Final negotiations resulted in the inclusion of a new indicator: “Donors will aim to channel 50% or more of government to government assistance through country fiduciary systems” (§15e).  And donors have committed to “use country systems as the first option” for aid to the public sector. When donors do avail of their get-out clause for not using these systems, they commit to transparently stating the reasons for avoiding them.

Division of labour, (§17)

The European Commission advocated hard for strengthening language on division of labour.  There is a commitment from donors that more division of labour “will not result in individual developing countries receiving less aid”. And intermediary dates on two rather vague actions were included at the last minute. (§17)

• Donors and developing countries will evaluate progress on good practice principles of division of labour and coordination plans, “starting in 2009”.
• Donors and developing countries “will start dialogue on international division of labour across countries by June 2009.”

Untying aid, (§18)

There was no further progress on untying beyond what the OECD/DAC had agreed in May 2008 to extend untying to eight further countries that were part of the HIPC initiative.[1] Donors agreed to “elaborate individual plans to untie their aid to the maximum extent” (§18b) but there is no date by when they should produce these plans, nor any target. And there was no agreement to extend untying to technical assistance or food aid.  There was resistance from many donors including Europeans for the former, and intransigence from the US even to mention the words “food aid”, despite a push from the French for including language on “more flexible use of food aid”.

Global funds/ South-south cooperation, (§ 19)

There is recognition that global funds can contribute to increased fragmentation and there is a commitment by donors in the AAA to “ensure that existing channels for aid delivery are used, and if necessary, strengthened before creating separate new channels that risk further fragmentation and complicate coordination at country level”.

A strong push by Brazil and other newer donors resulted in the inclusion of a paragraph recognising the important role of South-South cooperation. Brazil, together with some developing countries, was very critical of the current aid governance system.

Transparency and accountability (§ 24)

More transparency had been a key demand which civil society organisations had advocated strongly for. The Accra event was also the opportunity to launch a new CSO initiative – the Publish what you Fund Campaign. There is stronger language in the AAA on transparency and accountability, with commitment by donors to “publicly disclose regular, detailed and timely information on volume, allocation, and, when available, results of development expenditure,” a commitment to use “credible independent evidence” (although unclear who gets to decide the “credibility” of the evidence) in monitoring and an agreement to “review proposals for strengthening (mutual accountability) mechanisms by end 2009.” 

The AAA includes reiterated commitments to address corruption including donors “taking steps in their own countries to combat corruption by individuals or corporations and to track, freeze and recover illegally acquired assets” but with no target or date.

Conditionality (§25)

There is recognition of the link between ownership and conditionality, but unfortunately there was no agreement to reduce conditionality despite both developing country and civil society calls for this to happen.  There was an agreement to “make public all conditions linked to disbursements” starting immediately and to increase the “emphasis on harmonised, results-based conditionality” and for conditions to be “mutually-agreed.”  

Predictability of aid (§26)

There was partial success in improving the medium-term predictability of aid with a commitment from donors to provide “regular and timely information on their rolling three – to five year forward expenditure and/or implementation plans”.  The challenge for developing countries will be to ensure donors give them useful and disaggregated information for their country, not just overall spending plans.

Looking forwards 

The AAA proposes that the conclusions from Accra be presented at the MDG summit in September and the FFD meeting in Doha in November.  The illegitimacy of the OECD/DAC was consistently criticised as a Forum for negotiating aid, the UN ECOSOC Development Cooperation Forum gets a nod for its “contribution to international dialogue and to mutual accountability on aid issues.” The next High Level Forum will be held in 2011, although yet to be decided where. Could this event be jointly organised by the OECD and the DCF, perhaps? 

Conclusion

The final result is not revolutionary. Nonetheless, the combination of consistent pressure from civil society organisations inside and outside the official process, organised inputs from developing country governments and last minute coordinated political impetus in particular from European governments has resulted in a small step forwards in agreeing to improve aid quality.  The proof will be in the pudding, or in what donors in particular actually put into practice.  Civil society organisations will continue to advocate for change and will be keenly monitoring progress over the next months and beyond.

Relevant links:

The Accra Agenda for Action is here

A brief analysis by Fride in Spanish of the AAA can be found here

Blog posts:

Last stage negotiations just save Accra from drowning

Media Debate Better Aid

Accra_Agenda_for_Action_Analysis : 42 Kb