Presentation by Richard Manning (former Chair of OECD‐DAC) on the seminar "Dead End or Breakthrough? Where is International Development Cooperation Heading after the Accra High Level Forum?", 23 September 2008

1. Dead End or Breakthrough?
Where is International Development
Cooperation headed after the Accra
High‐Level Forum?

2. Will a changing ‘Aid Architecture’ Help or
Hinder Effective Aid?
Presentation by Richard Manning, former Chair
of OECD‐DAC

3. A Bit of History (1)
• Longstanding concerns about recipient
countries’ ability to manage aid inflows.....
• .......and about incoherence of donors
• Highlighted by pressure for ‘results’
• Three parallel responses:
• Sector‐wide approaches
• the PRSP model
• work on ‘donor practices’

4. A Bit of History (2)
• Rome High‐Level Forum, February 2003
• Based on work of DAC Task Force on Donor
Practices (which brought in key multilaterals
and a group of a dozen developing countries)
• Declaration (a last‐minute affair) brings
together harmonisation and alignment
agendas
• Engages senior officials, not donor Ministers,
and has little field impact

5. A Bit of History (3)
• Paris High‐Level Forum (Feb/March 2005)
• Larger and higher‐profile than Rome
• Strong ministerial involvement (and strong EU
position)
• Some limited civil society engagement
• Declaration a key reference: the five principles,
twelve indicators and targets for 2010
• Sets up monitoring system and two further HLFs

6. Accra HLF
• Main task: to sustain and build momentum, not
reconstruct agenda
• Monitoring exercise shows only modest progress
in changing behaviour
• Evaluation suggests however a degree of impact,
though also need for more political input
• Accra notable for much stronger participation by
Civil Society...........
• .........and recognition of far‐reaching changes in
the aid landscape

7. Accra Agenda for Action: what’s new?
(1) OWNERSHIP
• Stronger statements on broad‐based ownership
• Commitment to joint selection and management
of TC, and more use of local and regional TC
• Country systems as ‘first option’, and transparent
plans for undertaking Paris commitments
• But several let‐outs, and this remains a difficult
area

8. Accra Agenda for Action: what’s new?
(2) PARTNERSHIPS
• Reduce fragmentation; good practices and dialogue
on division of labour; aid ‘orphans’
• Untying and local and regional procurement
• Recognition of S‐S cooperation, with PD as point of
reference
• Global funds to apply all PD principles. ‘Think twice’
message on new global channels
• Closer dialogue with CSOs, including their
effectiveness
• Fragile situations: apply PD but also DAC Principles

9. Accra Agenda for Action
(3)RESULTS
• Align monitoring with local systems and build
statistical capacity
• Incentives and decentralisation
• Aid transparency, mutual accountability, anti‐
corruption
• Conditionality: good practice and transparency
• Predictability: ‘full and timely’ info on annual
commitments and disbursements and ‘regular and
timely’ info on rolling 3‐5 year plans

10. Accra Agenda for Action
(4) PROCESS
• Developing countries to design implementation
plans
• Re‐state commitments to PD and the 2010 targets
• Implement global partnership on agriculture and
food
• Improve indicators, monitor and report to Fourth
HLF in late2011: needs ‘institutionalised processes
for the joint and equal partnership of developing
countries and the engagement of stakeholders’
• Link to aid volume, and to UN processes (MDG
event, FFD and DCF)

11. Assessment
(1) OVERALL
• Strong but not blind support for ‘Paris’
approach
• Civil society influencing and influenced
• New generation of leaders ‘bought in’
• Aid transparency and predictability move up
the agenda
• But not clear if Accra will lead to early
progress in difficult areas (eg country systems)

12. Assessment
(2) CHANGING AID ARCHITECTURE
• Particular focus on official sources (non‐DAC donors),
but also CSOs. BMGF statement important
• Recipients value diversity and responsiveness of non‐
traditional donors: but issues over tying and
transparency
• Some tension between recipients and (some) middle
income donors on applicability of PD principles
• Traditional donors recognise that these donors
cannot be expected simply to apply PD targets
• Lesson‐learning on global funds

13. What Next?
• Neither dead end nor breakthrough
• Dialogue needed internationally (where?)
and, in particular at country level
• Centrality of recipient perspective: will be
challenging for both traditional and South‐
South partners –good!