15-16 December 2011 in Warsaw the 6th edition of the European Development Days took place. The theme of this year`s EDD was “Development and democracy”, which in light of recent events in Belarus, North Africa, Syria, or Sudan seems particularly timely. During the meeting there was also a discussion on the effectiveness of aid, given the fact that EDDs were held immediately after the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan. Zagranica Group joined the discussion by organizing high-level panel titled "Aid Effectiveness and Accountability in the post-Busan framework."

PHOTO GALLERY

Zagranica Group hosted one of the high-level panels titled "Aid Effectiveness and Accountability in the post-Busan framework" in which panelists discussed the relationship between the responsibility / accountability of the actors of development cooperation and the effectiveness in the context of the results of the High Level Forum, which took place in late November and December in Busan (South Korea). Among the panelists we hosted a strong representation of civil society: Natalia Alonso from Oxfam International and Antonio Tujan, a representative of Better Aid, who was also a representative of civil society organizations (CSOs) at the Forum.

For the first time CSOs were present at the negotiating table in Pusan. It was recognized that CSOs play a key role in the development process on the ground, not just in the process of assistance. Hence, among other things, there is a record in the final document providing a favorable environment for the organizations. Most of the demands of civil society organizations concerned the so-called accountability understood in various ways: first, as to ensure the participation of citizens in the development process of their country, including ensuring the right to information, and secondly as the transparency and monitoring of aid activities, and third as sanctioning in a situation which leads to negative consequences of aid activities. The word "accountability" is also translated as the mutual responsibility of individual actors in development cooperation, which include among others partner countries (so-called global South), donor countries (the global North), social organizations involved in development cooperation, governmental international organizations, including financial organizations (World Bank, IMF, UN and its various agencies, etc.), or - especially in recent times - the private sector.

According to Natalia Alonso from Oxfam International, one of the biggest challenges facing the actors in development cooperation is the transparency of aid, Alonso said that China is a big donor, but no one knows how much money they spend on the real help. She also asked how a structure such as the European Union, can mobilize individual countries to be driven by the principles of transparency when it comes to foreign aid?

This question was addressed primarily to Renate Hahlen from the Directorate General for Development and Cooperation of the European Commission. In her opinion, each member country and the EU as a whole can provide such evidence. The European Commission presented ​​concrete proposals in Busan on this matter. Moreover, it publishes all the information about the development cooperation, in accordance with international standards and IATI (International Aid Transparency Initiative) frameworks. It also encourages all the 27 countries and others, who invest in development, to implement IATI. Hahlen said that If transparency is not maintained funding assistance is not possible to hold individual actors liable. The issue of transparency is another topic, that should be discussed and adopted after Busan. Hahlen also drew attention to another issue that hampered the course of the discussion in Busan. There were voices complaining about the lack of additional commitment of donors. According to Hahlen it is not about additional obligations, but about deepening what is already accepted, and which has not been yet put into effect.

Antonio Tujan noted that discussion about obligations was complicated by a difficult situation associated with the crisis. Developed countries are using the crisis as an excuse for negligence in the quality and quantity of development cooperation. Consequently, the poor pay for the crisis, among other things, due to the reduced promises.

An important point of the discussion was the strategy for monitoring activities. The European Commission proposes that the monitoring should take place primarily on a national level, not global. Renate Hahlen argued that this approach is more effective when it comes to monitoring activities on the ground, and especially when it comes to financial responsibility. Global monitoring would address the global financial indicators. According to Hahlen development of such indicators is a task for the year 2015, when data will be collected from all 10 years. Also in this aspect, we should stick to the commitments made ​​in Rome, Paris and Accra.

Natalia Alonso from Oxfam presented a different point of view, according to which, one of the disadvantages of the Forum in Busan was that no agreement was reached on global monitoring framework for development cooperation. According to Alonso, the national system is essential for acceptance of responsibility, but equally important is a global framework that would ensure, that the responsibility of individual actors in development cooperation is the subject of reports addressed to the international community. Oxfam representative agreed with the proposal, to introduce global indicators after some time, but doubted whether there will be a political will to do that. The reason for these doubts are the observations of the discussion in Busan​​ where - according to Antonio Tujan – the donors wanted to even take a step back.

Jean Bossuyt from the European Centre for Development Policy Management drew attention to another topic related to the effectiveness of aid, as he claims, donors are looking for the best channel to transfer funds, but this process leads to such an obsession, that the aspect of accountability is overlooked. For example, the governments of individual partner countries, when it comes to services, achieve the best results. But in terms of accountability it is not the best solution, because decisions at the local level can affect the principle of accountability, due to the fact, that it is not clear which actor is to address the implementation of what kind of help. Moreover, according to Bussuyt for aid to be effective, it must be of a certain amount. Otherwise Bussuyt sees it as spinning around in circles.

Antonio Tujan concluded the discussion, admitting jokingly, that aid will not save the world, but it can kill us. If the different actors of development cooperation will not live up to their commitments and will not be held responsible for how they spend money, development assistance remains the proverbial "window-dressing". Compliance with the principle of "first do not harm" is definitely not enough to talk about the effectiveness of development cooperation. Effectiveness does not arise as a result of many hours of debating or political declarations. The most important question that should now be asked is whether the results of Busan are increasing effectiveness on the ground and whether they take into account the perspective of people living in poverty. These people do not know where aid comes from, for them its effectiveness is important.

Fot. © European Union / Scorpix, www.eudevdays.eu