Bridging Anti-corruption and Social Accountability – The role of Civil Society in Sustainable Development


Published on

Opening session of the Rio+20 side event on "Civil Society and Knowledge Community: Dialogues around Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development". Presentation delivered by Ms. Leisa Perch, IPC-IG's Policy Specialist and Team Leader - Rural and Sustainable Development.

Published in: News & Politics, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • We should highlight UNDP’s deliberate attempts to bring these two line of work (Anti-Corruption and UN-REDD) together by building on our comparative strengths, lessons learned and networks. Building synergies at the national and local level further strengthens UNDP’s position as a coordinator of these initiatives
  • Bridging Anti-corruption and Social Accountability – The role of Civil Society in Sustainable Development

    1. 1. Climate Finance: Bridging Anti-corruptionand Social Accountability – The role of Civil Society UNDP /BDP Democratic Governance Group and the International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG) June, 2012 by Tsegaye Lemma, BDP/DGG and Leisa Perch, IPC-IG
    2. 2. Evolving discourse on Anti-corruptionin development effectiveness ∗ Global discourse on Development Finance has been focused on scaling up financial resources ∗ less on preventing leakages through corruption and mismanagement ∗ For instance, the 2010 MDG summit failed to explicitly acknowledge corruption as a major bottleneck ∗ Yet, the statistics are frightening: ∗ $1 trillion per year: annual illicit money flowing out of all developing countries ∗ $10/$1: The ratio of illicit money flowing out of poor nations to the amount of foreign aid ∗ $148 bn or 25% of national income: cost of corruption in Africa
    3. 3. Will climate financing mechanisms bring in additional challenges?∗ Plethora of climate change financing schemes emerging with the promise of mobilizing several billions of dollars ∗ Raises optimism as well as real concerns∗ These concerns arise from: ∗ the complexity of the schemes themselves, ∗ the sheer size of funds (attracts big players – good and bad), ∗ the multitude of players and stakeholders ∗ layers of accountability and extent of social accountability ∗ underlying weak governance and vulnerabilities to corruption, etc. ∗ Access and benefit-sharing by the poor ∗ Social inclusion in criteria and accountability mechanisms ∗ The possibility of not achieving development results (particularly in an era of scarce resource)
    4. 4. CC Finance Architecture (2012) Source:
    5. 5. Focus of Funding in 2010Focus of Approved Funding Focus of approved funding by themeby theme (2010) (2012) Source: Sourced from:
    6. 6. Warning Signals – Inclusiveness in planning? Analysis of Inclusion by Group or by Vulnerability in NAPAs to Date (see coding process in Annex 2)* % of available % of availableInclusivity factor Yes No NAPAS NAPAsMentions gender 25 78.0 7 22.0Prioritises gender 12 37.5 20 62.5Mentions poverty 31 97.0 1 3.0Prioritises poverty 26 81.0 6 19.0Mentions ethnicity 7 22.0 25 78.0Prioritises ethnicity 31 97.0 1 3.0Lists vulnerable groups 21 65.5 11 34.5Identifies participatory actions 18 56.0 2 6.0 * 10 NAPAs did not make clear the level or types of participatory efforts undertaken.Source: Perch, 2010
    7. 7. What role for CSOs (NGOs, CBOs, think-tanks, media, IP organizations)?∗ Awareness raising and public education ∗ Reduce information asymmetry related to CC funds∗ Stakeholder engagement and community participation ∗ Strengthen social accountability∗ Legal education and assistance to communities ∗ Ensure transparency and equity in the process of recognition and titling of rights to land & carbon∗ Monitoring and oversight of use of funds and distribution of benefits ∗ Surveys and participatory budgeting processes
    8. 8. CSOs/KBIs already play a key role Table 1. Select CSO/KBI roles emerging from past research Civil Society Organization Role played ActionAid Raised important questions about community participation in the Adaptation Fund Board process, highlighting the lack of clarity and consistency as one of its more significant weaknesses (ActionAid, 2009) Focus on the Global South Exposed inconsistencies in the Clean Development Mechanism. Example their report on the CDM in the Philippines (see Germanwatch Watching brief on the Adaptation Fund process for the review of projects, preparing and disseminating reports after Board meetings (see Kaloga and Harmeling, 2010). Highlighted for example the lack of agreement over key criteria for funds: “adequate adaptation reasoning in projects and programmes”. Knowledge-Based Institutions Overseas Development Institute and HBS Provides updated data about the state and distribution of climate finance (partners in Climate Update. Org) including search and analytical capacity. The World Resources Institute leads on tracking Fast Track Finance (FSF) FIELD Prepares legal briefs to delegations and other interested parties about the implications of negotiations and has also provided analysis on negotiations around REDD+ (see ). Hybrids Oxfam, WOCAN and the Institute of the Targeted the governance of climate finance overall as well as REDD+, access Green Economy and benefit-sharing, respectively including for women (Perch, 2011). GenderCC, IUCN, WEDO (as part of the Worked alongside other actors to keep gender and climate change on the GCCA and separately) agenda and fought for gender to be mainstreaming in critical instruments including finance instruments Heinrich Boll-Stiftung Governance Issues (Madzwamuse, 2011), Strengthening access to women (Petrie et al, 2010) and calling into question the reliability and efficacy of the World Bank’s safeguards policy and mechanism (Schalatek, 2011)
    9. 9. What role of social risk mitigationTable 2. Social Risks emerging in CC mitigation (Perch, 2011) Social Risk Mitigation Potential Role for CSOs The burdens that women’s unpaid work place on Advocate for and ensure policy coherence between their time and use of resources, and accordingly REDD and REDD+ and the Beijing Platform of their capacity to adapt and resile will largely Action, the Convention on the Elimination of remain outside the policy framework. Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and Belém do Pará. Clear procedures to challenge priority mitigation Challenge/query priority mitigation and adaptation adaptation actions do not exist or are not easily actions including benefit-sharing for the poor and enforceable possible creating new social risks. most vulnerable. Identify options which would strengthen social resilience. Ensure that processes of inclusion do more than Policy guided good intentions remain grand ideals consult but indentify clear means and process for rather than defined outcomes. participation and benefit-sharing. Identify and promote mixed-model approaches The demand for rapid carbon emissions reductions which balance livelihoods and emissions-reduction. will likely also increase the premium on land. Short- term food production may become even more Promote existing innovations which could be scaled costly and challenge and the poor may find it even up. more difficult to compete financially. Highlight the differentiated needs within REDD+ policies narrow the income inequality gap communities including gender and other biases and but does not eliminate overall poverty. Existing forms of economic exclusion become further promote the need for economic empowerment entrenched particularly for women rather than payment for environmental services (make PES pro-poor). Conduct research which identifies the costs of such REDD+ finance does not trickle down and is not risks and identify mechanisms for improving access invested in regeneration and long-term economic empowerment strategies to finance such as mobile finance. Make recommendations for improved budgeting and allocations between macro and local development frameworks.
    10. 10. What role for social accountability?Table 3 : Selected Social Accountability Issues emerging from Natural Resource Extraction (Khoday andPerch, 2012)Social Accountability Issues Potential CSO RoleMissed opportunity for mitigation finance including Advocate for, backed up evidence, of the co-benefits toREDD to help transform the consistently underfunded be derived from linking re-afforestation and otheragricultural sector in Africa in the face of increasing food REDD+ activities with more sustainable agricultureinsecurityThe social uses and allocations to which REDD+ To help to navigate this discussion and expand theresources are directed. Should they be universal or dialogue and engagement on diverse opinions andtargeted to the specific community? interests. Ensuring that some of the resources are targeted to the communities who are creating the environmental goods.Who decides how such royalties are used and who Ensuring rigorous debates on these issues and robustaccounts for the benefits and impacts? accountability mechanisms for government, private sector and civil society.Ensuring indigenous land rights, cultural autonomy and Keeping attention on this issue and the need for broadthe need for prior and informed consent as prescribed in engagement with the indigenous communities as well asthe UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights passed in 2007. the need for accountability mechanisms and payment structures to mesh with and respect rights frameworks and cultural autonomy.Who owns the land and therefore receives the benefits? Ensure and advocate for rigorous investigations to makeCan REDD+ accommodate customary land tenure sure that the right-holders are appropriately identifiedframeworks and other community ownership and recognized as beneficiaries. Advocate and promotearrangements? systems of governance as as “nested structures of rules within rules, within further rules”.Who accounts for what? Advocate and promote the benefits of full transparency of REDD+ arrangements as well as reporting. Leverage lessons from the decentralized forest management approach in Cameroon for example.Coherence between REDD+, social safeguards and the Actively engaging on and promoting the need for andNagoya Protocol benefits of policy coherence between these 3 Institutional frameworks.
    11. 11. What role for mitigating corruption?Table 4 – Potential role of CSOs in Mitigating Corruption Risks in REDD+ processesPotential Corruption Risks in REDD+ Role of CSOs in curbing corruption risksPowerful individuals influencing the design of the Conduct/participate corruption risk assessments inoverall national REDD+ framework to benefit from it REDD+ and facilitate multi-stakeholders consultations at all stages of development of national REDD+ frameworkLoggers exert undue influence to exclude large areas Advocate for establishing and enforcing objectiveof high value timber from areas designated for criteria to guide land use planning decisionsconservationProject developers or interest groups bribe public Promote full information disclosure of land allocations,officials to ensure that the land areas they own are (re)zoning applications and decisions and ensure it is inallocated to, or excluded from, REDD+ plans accessible format and be subject to a public consultation processPowerful actors exert undue influence to obtain Ensure transparency and equity in the process offraudulent licenses, land titles or carbon rights recognition and titling of rights to land & carbon and assist customary communities with land registration and carbon rights allocation processesBenefit-Distribution Systems (BDSs) are designed Ensure that an independent, effective and accessiblebehind closed doors to the disadvantage of deserving recourse and complaints mechanism is available to thebeneficiaries public, including to indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities Design and apply participatory monitoring tools to ensure REDD+ related benefits are shared equitability and transparently
    12. 12. Capacity determinants of CSO engagement∗ Enabling environment: ∗ Policy space; freedom of association, information and civic engagement; recognition of IP rights; protection of whistleblowers; etc.∗ Organizational capacities: ∗ Clarity of vision and missions; predictability of funding; internal audit and control systems; SOP; M&E systems; etc.∗ Technical know-how: ∗ Expertise in climate change negotiation processes and related thematic issues; understanding of anti-corruption instruments and tools; knowledge of budget tracking tools; evidence-based advocacy techniques; knowledge management (to capture and codify both modern and indigenous/local)
    13. 13. Highlights of UNDP’s initiatives∗ Multi-stakeholder engagement ∗ Ensuring IPs, local communities and CSOs participate effectively in national and international REDD+ decision making, strategy development and implementation. ∗ Developing guidelines for application of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and recourse mechanisms∗ Curbing corruption risks in REDD+ and strengthening capacities of stakeholders including CSOs ∗ Participatory governance assessment, corruption risk assessment ∗ Specialized capacity development support and trainings ∗ Technical and Funding support∗ Global policy advocacy for greater space for integrity institutions and CS partners in climate finance mechanisms
    14. 14. Highlights (2): Building Knowledgefor Change∗ Research on Inclusive Green Growth and opportunities to integrate a triple wins approach∗ Identifying and documenting relevant case studies and innovations∗ Supporting and promoting South-South cooperation for development∗ Targeted research on issues on economic governance challenges in NRM for improved policy practice and design∗ Putting lessons into practice through the Poverty and Environment Initiative∗ Capacity development in key institutions such as Parliaments (Green Guide for SADC Parliamentarians)
    15. 15. ∗ For more information ∗ ∗ or ∗ ∗