012 부산 세계개발원조총회 최종결과와 향후과제 by KoFID

정책토론회

부산 세계개발원조총회 최종결과와 향후과제

일 시: 8월 23일 (목) 오후 2시-5시 10분 장 소: 카톨릭청년회관 ‘다리’ 3층 바실리오홀 주 최: 국제개발협력시민사회포럼 한국해외원조단체협의회 후 원: 한국국제협력단

목

차

Ⅰ. 프로그램 Ⅱ. 발제문 [발제1]부산총회 최종결과에 대한 평가 및 향후과제 / 코피드 정책위원장 이태주---------------------7 [발제2]부산총회 최종결과 이행을 위한 한국시민사회의 역할과 전략 / 해원협 민경일 이사---------15

Ⅲ. 참고자료 [OECD] 1. Busan partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (29 November-1 December 2011)------------------------------------------------------------------------25

2. 부산총회결과문서(국문)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------39 3. Proposed mandate for the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (28-29 June 2012, UNESCO, Paris)-------------------------------------------------------------------------53

4. Proposed indicators targets and process for global monitoring of The Busan partnership for Effective Development Co-operation(28-29 June 2012, UNESCO, Paris)------------------------63 [정부] 1. 부산 글로벌 파트너십 공식 출범-----------------------------------------------------------------------97 2. 부산 글로벌 파트너십 출범과 우리나라 ODA 정책과제(KOICA 국제개발협력 2012년 3호)---------103 3. 부산 글로벌 파트너십과 한국 ODA의 전략적 이행방안(KOICA 국제개발협력 2012년 3호)---------117 [시민사회] 1. KoFID 부산 글로벌 파트너십 이행계획----------------------------------------------------------------139 2. 해원협의 부산 글로벌 파트너십 이행계획------------------------------------------------------------147

-3-

. Ⅰ. 프로그램 1. 배 경 n

시민사회를 포함한 OECD 원조효과작업반(Working Party on Aid Effectiveness, WP-EFF) 멤버들과 부산 세계개발원조총회 결과문서를 승인한 개발협력의 다양한 주체들은 지난 6월 28-29일 파리 유네스코 본부에 모여 작년 말 부산에서 열린 세계개발원조총회의 결과 이행 방안에 최종 합의함

이에 따라 “효과적인 개발협력을 위한 글로벌파트너십 (Global Partnerhisp for Effectivce Development Cooperation, GPEDC)”이 출범, 부산 결과를 모니터 하기 위한 10개의 지표(Indicators)를 승인함

글로벌 파트너십을 운영하기 위한 거버넌스 체제는 18에서 24개월마다 한번씩 열릴 예정인 장관급 회의와 장관급 회의를 위한 실질사항 논의를 목적으로 하는 집행위원회로 구성됨 (시민사회 1석 포함)

이와 같은 배경하에 코피드와 해원협을 비롯한 한국시민사회는 부산총회 최종결 과에 대한 평가를 통해 향후 과제를 논의하고 최종결과 이행을 위한 시민사회의 역할과 전략을 모색 할 필요성 제기됨

2. 목적과 기대효과 n

부산총회 최종 결과에 대한 평가와 향후 과제 논의

부산총회 최종 결과 이행을 위한 한국시민사회의 역할과 전략 모색

-5-

3. 프로그램(안)

“부산 세계개발원조총회 최종결과와 향후과제” 사회: 코피드 이성훈 국제위원장 13:40-14:00

등록

14:00-14:10

[인사말] 남부원 해원협 국제협력위원장/코피드 운영위원장 [기조발제]

14:10-14:30

발제1. 부산총회 최종결과에 대한 평가 및 향후과제 – 코피드 이태주 정책위원장

14:30-14:50

발제2. 부산총회 최종결과 이행을 위한 한국시민사회의 역할과 전략 – 해원협 민경일 이사

14:50-15:00

질의응답

15:00-15:20

휴식

15:20-16:20

[패널 토론] 글로벌발전연구원 (ReDI) 홍문숙 정책연구실장 지구촌나눔운동 조현주 사무총장 한국월드비전 이명신 본부장 한국해외원조단체협의회 이경신 대외협력팀장

16:20-17:00

[자유 토론]

17:00-17:10

정리 및 마무리

-6-

부산 세계개발원조총회 최종결과와 향후과제

[발제1]

부산총회 최종결과에 대한 평가 및 향후과제

이태주

KoFID 정책위원장

-7-

.R),' ┘ХтАл╦Г█┐ █ПтАм╩О╪ИрбХргПржжрнг ржлргЧ╩╝╦Храк рмпрнп ╦Хрв┐ рв╜ре║рй╡╘╜рнг

┘ХтАл█ПтАмржжрнг ржлргЧ╩╝╦Х▀╛ ╨╛рмЮ рлб╔╝ тАл ╪АтАмрмпрнп ╦Хрв┐ рвДрйРргм .R),' рв║ре╖рбЯрбТрвЭ 2'$ :DWFK ╨╗рлп

┘ХтАл╠Ф █ПтАм╘╗тАл ╪гтАмрк│ркЭ╬┐тАл ▌лтАм╩ОрбБ ┬Щ ╩╛╦Т ┬Г ┘ТтАл █МтАм+/) ┘ТтАл╠С █МтАм╘╕тАл ╪атАмрк░ркЪ╬╝тАл* ▌итАмOREDO 3DUWQHUVKLS IRU (IIHFWLYH 'HYHORSPHQW &RRSHUDWLRQ рж┤тАл╪втАм ┬Г ┘ТтАл╠С █МтАм╘╕тАл ╪атАмрк░ркЪ╬╝тАл рб┐▌итАм╦оржОрв│рвЖ рбИраП╪М▀Д ╧Ярб┐╒о рбЯрмв 3RVW %XVDQ ,QWHULP *URXS рбИраП ┬Г 2(&' рбТргМрнз╦ТрвУ▀│тАл ╪ГтАмржиргФрнарб┐ ┬╢ a ▀╗█н ╠С╘╕тАл ╪атАмрк░ркЪ╬╝тАлрб┐▌итАм тАлраПрбИ ┘Т█╝тАм╪М▀Д рмЯрб┐

-9-

┘ХтАл╠Ф █ПтАм╘╗тАл ╪гтАмрк│ркЭ╬┐тАл ▌лтАм╩ОрбБ ┬Щ╠С╘╕тАл ╪атАмрк░ркЪ╬╝тАл╠Ш рб┐▌итАм╨Щ╦Т рбИраПржОрв╝ ┬в ╠Ш╨Щ рбХргПрнк╦ХтАл █╜тАм╧врвВ╔╝ ╠Ы▄╜рв╢рвЙ ╓┤▀╛ рзФрбЙрзЦ рмЮ╦Г╒▒ ╠СтАл█П┘Х ┘АтАмржжрнг рмврвВтАл█МтАмрмд рвЗрмнрб╢ рбврмЮ рв╜рзФрв╢ ╓╗╓лрйг ╩ИрнШ ┘ХтАл█ПтАмржжрнг рмврвВтАл█МтАмрмд рвЗрмнрб╢ рбврмЮ ре║рвОтАл █╜тАмрнЩтАл╪┐тАм ╨м▀жрмЮ ╩О╪ИргпржС ╔╛ рдПтАл ракрбк╦У ▌етАм╦Брм╡ ╦Урбк рнЫтАл█╜тАмрнШ ╩О╤ж╦▓ рнГрва▀╛█░рвВ ┘ХтАл█ПтАмржжрнг рмврвВтАл█МтАмрмд рвЗрмн рдПрбХ ┬г рбИраПржОрв╝ рва╦Ч╠ЧрнгрвВ ╩ОрбЦ ргп╠Ы раЖрйЙ ╦Ирбв╠Ч ╩О╪ИрнгрвВрак раЙ╦ГрмЬраЖ ╩Оржл рдЦрмнрбврбХрнг рва╦Ч╠Ч рнгрвВ рвВрв┐ рг▒тАл ┘╕тАм╥Я тАл раТрбЛ рв┐▌итАм╨╢╨║ ╓╕рб│╘╗ ╦▒тАл█╜тАм 2(&' 81'3 ╦У╤░рдПрбХркп тАл╠Ы ╦▓╫Ф█МтАм╨Ь ▄╣рмн ╚Д рдЦрмнрбврбХрнг ╓нтАл ╓╕ ╪ЯтАм R ╦У╤░рвВрва раТ╦▓ рвЙ╤ж╧МтАл ▀Е▌дтАм╬ЯрвЗрдП╒╣▀Е R рбврбХ ▄╣рбХ╦▓ рео╥Ц ╦Хрйи╓Ж╘В ╤░ркл╓╗╒о ╪П╠Ф╘В╤ЦтАл▌ж ▀Е╓╗█М ▌дтАмроЪ╦▓ рлУ╒Ф ╦УраЖ╦▓ рмЮ╦▓ тАл╦▓╫╡тАм рвВрнг ,38 тАл█М╫╖▌дтАмрнг %HWWHU$LG тАл╫╖тАм╔╛ %,$& ╨мрвХ╩О╪Ирб╡рмн :% 81'3 2(&'

┘ХтАл╠Ф █ПтАм╘╗тАл╓╗ ╪гтАм╨врйЮ╓А ржСрв┐ ┘ТтАл█МтАмржгрна рмЯрб┐тАл█ЙтАмрмб рвДрмк рв╖╩грб│ рбЯрмЫ ╩Л ╓╕╨ЯрйЫ╒╜ рдМрлп рвТ╪Ерв│ ре░раГ рбТрзТ ╠С╘╕тАл ╪атАмрдМрлп

рдМрлп █│╓╡

╓╣рлпрзС

┘ТтАл╦Т╩╣ █МтАм тАлргМ █н╫ФтАмрмб

▄╢рбТ╦п рбЖ█▒▄╕рбЯ тАлраП╪ГтАм

▄╣рбХ╦▓ рбЙ█┤▄╗рбв ╪ЖраТрмЮ ╩╝╦Х рмО╘жрвОрбУри║ рнЫрбИ рв╜╤ж

╓╗╥Ш ╦УраЖргпржС╔╝ ▄╣рбХ╦▓ ╩╝╦Х рмО╘жрвОрбУри║ рнЫрбИ

тАл█Й╫┤▌бтАмрнарб┐ ре░раГраз ╠ШраГ

&,9,&86 тАл█М╫╖▌дтАмрнг рнЪ╦БрдП▄╣ рнЫрбИ рбУ рнЦрв║

рдПтАл █╜▄ЦтАмрмп█Ш

тАл╫┤тАм╔╗┘Ф▀Ырб┐ раД╘Ш╩ЕрнХ

рж┤рнп рнЩрв╜ рбУ рнЦрв║

рдПтАл █╜▄ЦтАмрмп█Ш

╩Л╪ЕрнГ╘м рв║тАл ╪╝тАм╦Р╩Л

╦Урй╝рвВ ╦У╩О рл▓рг▒ рнЫрбИ рв╜╤ж ╓╕╥Х ргмржО рбУ╠дрдМ тАл▌етАмрмк╦Арнб ▄╢╒╗

╓╗╥Ш ╦УраЖргпржС╔╝ рнЫрбИ

раУрзК ╔╣╨ЩтАл█║тАм D ╨м╠Ш раУрзКтАл█║тАм E рг╡╠Ш раУрзКтАл█║тАм

╩О╪ИрнЖ╘првВ раЦрзН ╔╝╨ЬтАл╦Ирв┐ █╜тАм рме╨║ ╧Ч╤ж ╦Грнд╤╣ рбХргПрвВ рдЦрмн тАлрбн┘╕тАм рг╕╠Ы рдЦрмн╦Грнд▀╛ рлжрмб╤╣ рбХргП тАлрбн┘╕тАм

рдЦрмн╤╕рдП ▀Йрб╡ тАл рбн┘╕тАм╩ГтАл▄ХтАм рлжрмб╤╕рдП ▀Йрб╡ тАл рбн┘╕тАм╩ГтАл▄ХтАм

рбТргМрб┐ раУтАлрнХ█МтАм

╩О╤ж╦▓ рвВрнг тАл рб╢рвЙ▌гтАм╪Зрб╡ раЙ╔╛ раЦтАл▀╛█ПтАм█░ рбХргП тАлрбн┘╕тАм ╧Ч ╠Ырг▒

рв╜┘Х▀╛ рдПрбХ╤╕╨Х ╩О╪ИрбХргП рг╕ рв╜┘Х раЦтАл╦И╪┐ ▀╛█ПтАм╤╕рдП ▀Йрб╡ тАл┘╕тАм рбн ╩ГтАл▄ХтАм

тАл█ХтАмрнЛ ре╖рвЛтАл█║тАм

┘ХтАл█ПтАмржжрнг рмврвВтАл█МтАмрмд рвЗрмнрб╢ рбврмЮ рлж╦Шрв╢рвЙ █ШрнОрлб╔╝ ╩жрй╡ ре│раЖ

╓╗╥Ш ╩О╤ж╦▓▀╛█░ ╤жрвП

▀гтАл█║тАмрлЮ╥Ь╦Т раГтАлраД █║тАм╘Ш╩ЕрнХ

▀жтАл█╜тАмрлб╥Я╦Х раЖтАлраЗ рвВ█╜тАм╘Ы╩ИрнШ╒▒ рбврмЮ ╦У╦УраЦтАлрв╜╪С █ПтАм ╦Х рвЗ╒▒ ркЭ╘ОрйИрмЬ╨Х тАл▌Ы▌дтАмрймрб╢ ╔╝рдС ╦▓╔╝рвВ тАлрбн┘╕тАм

╓╗╥Ш ╩О╤ж╦▓▀╛█░ ╤жрвП

▄╢рбТ╦п тАл▌Ш▌бтАмрйй рнШрбЕ

рнк╦Хрв╢рвЙ рв┐╤ж ╦▒рж╡рб╢ рбврмЮ ╩О╤ж╦▓ тАл▌Ы▌дтАмрйм ╩ИрнШ тАл╪АтАм рнЫрбИ ╧Ч ╠Ырг▒

╩О╤ж╦▓ рвЗ█Ш▀╛█░ 3)0 &3,$ рв║▄╣ ржлтАл ▄ХтАм╨п╦Г █ШтАл▌гтАм

тАл┘╡тАм╦отАлрнХ▄УтАм

тАл рбн┘╕ ргПрбХ █╜▄Ц╦▒┘╕тАм╧Ч ╠Ырг▒

рдПтАл рв╢▄ЦтАмрмп█Ш

- 10 -

┘ХтАл╠Ф █ПтАм╘╗тАл ╪гтАмрк│ркЭ╬┐тАлрвВрвВ рвВ▌лтАм ┬Щ ╩Л╪ЕрнГ╘м раДтАл █Х█ЙтАмржиржЬ╘╕ ╨й▀грмЫ ╩Л╪ЕргмржО ре░раГ рв║┘Т ╦прв╝╠Ш╦о тАл ╦Ф╠Ш ┘Трв║┘╡тАм╥Ь ╨й▀грмЫ ╩Л╪ЕргмржОрб┐ раДрмЬ╦Т ╠ШраГ╒о рвЖрв║ рлг╦Хрв│ ре░раГ╒о ╠ШтАлрб░╪ГтАм╘╕ рмЩ╨Т █Ч╘╕рбИ ╠С╘╕тАл╪атАм ╩Л╪Е ╩ЭтАл╪ЬтАм╬┐тАл ▌ШтАмржОрв╝

┬Щ рбТргМрнз╦ТтАл █║тАм╧Ярб┐▀╗█н ╩Л╪Ернз╦ТтАл █║тАм╧Ярб┐╘╕рб┐ рв┤рнЧ █▒рдО╦п ргм╤грб┐ рнз╦ТтАл █║тАм╧Ярб┐ ргФ╒Л рк░ркЪ╬╝╦прб┐ ╓╣тАл▄ТтАм╒╢раз рвМрвЭрвД тАлраП╪ГтАм╤╖ ▄╢ рвО╨Т рв╝╤грв│ ╠ШтАл ╪ГтАм╒╛╘н рдУрмкрбЯрбТрна ╓╡ рг╡ ╓╡рвД рк░ркЪ╬╝╦п

┬Щ

81╦Т 81╦Т 2(&' рнГ╘м ╩ЕрнХ

2(&' ргм╓АрвЖ ▀В╨б 81рвД рмЮ═Ж раЖ╦АрмЩраГ ╧Э╘мрмЩ╤г╘╣ ╦Р╩А╨╗ рнЖтАл█║тАм

┬Щ тАл▌гтАмроЧ╦п тАл▌гтАмроЧ╦п тАл╫┤тАм╔╗ тАл╫┤тАм╔╗ ргмржО╥ЧрвД ╦ЕрбЯ╠Ф рв║ре╖ ╨╗рнХ▀╗ ре░раГрмЬ ▄╢ рвО╨Т рв╝╤грнХ╤╢ ╦Р╔╗ ╒╛╘н ┬Щ ╩Лрб┐ ╩Лрб┐ рлг╦Хрв│рвЖ рвДрмк рдМрлп╒о рй╣рмЫ ре╖тАл █║╫СтАм╩ЕрнХ

┘ХтАл╠Ф █ПтАм╘╗тАл ╪гтАмрк│ркЭ╬┐тАл рвВ▌лтАмрмЮ╦Г ┬Щ ╩Л╪Ернз╦Т ╨отАлрбЯ рб│█║тАмрмЫ рмгтАл ▌зтАм╧Ярб┐ рв╝ра╢ рв╝ра╢ FI 0'* FI 0'*

ра╢ре╢ ра╢ре╢ тАлраД╫СтАм тАл раД╫СтАм ╠Урбо ╠Урбо рвДргмтАл╠У▄ЫтАм рвДргмтАл ╠У▄ЫтАм тАл╪ГтАмрелтАл╪┤тАм тАл╪ГтАмрелтАл ╪┤тАм рнЧ╩╛ рнЧ╩╛ ╥Ь

┬Щ рвТ╪Ерв│ ре░раГ ╠ШтАл╪ГтАм ╠ШтАл ╪ГтАм рвДрмк рвДрмк рб┐тАл ▀╗█║╫Сре╖ раз╫СтАм╨╗рмЫ ╦отАлрнХ▀Ь █║▄УтАм ркЫроЯ ╬д╬дрнГ╘м╦п тАл ╫╜тАм%5,&V ╥Ь тАл▌гтАмроЧ╦прб┐ тАл рв│╠О▄ТтАмре░раГ ┘Цре░ рбЖ╘л р│и ┘ТтАл█МтАмржгрна▀╗█н рвД╥Чрб┐ ре░раГ╒о рвД╬М▀к╬н╨Т╤У ╠ШраГрмЫ рмЫ╦прб┐ рдМтАл рвЖрв│▄УтАм╒╢╤ЕтАл┘о рвЖрв│╠Орв│ ╦Т▌итАм╒╝рдМ раДрмЬ ра╛╦о ╩Л╪Е╤гтАлрвТ рб┐╦п█ХтАм╪Ерв│рвЖ ╓╕╨ЯрйЫ╒╜ тАл рб┐╦Е╪╝ ╦Т╩╣ ╫╜тАм╦отАл▄УтАм╘м рвО╨Т рвДрмк ▀к╘лрбМ

┬Щ ╨╗ ╨╗ рдМрлп ра╢ рбТргМрнз╦ТтАл █║тАм рбТргМрнз╦ТтАл █║тАм╩Л╪Ернз╦ТтАл╦Ф █║тАм╘н рвДрмк тАл█ЙтАмрмб ╔╗╦Т рбТргМрнз╦ТтАл рб│█║тАм╧жрвД╠Ш рбЯрмЫ рмгтАл█Й ▌зтАмрмб╥Ч▀╗ ╨╗рмЫ ╦РраГ╦п╥Чрб┐ ре╖рвЛ ╩АтАл▄ТтАм ╩Л╪ЕрвЯрбТ ╤нрбТ рв║ре╖рвЗ╦ФтАл █║тАм3&' ╥Ь ╦РраГ╦п╥Чрб┐ ре╖рвЛ рнармС

- 11 -

FI ┘ТтАл╠С █МтАм╘╕тАл ╪атАмрк░ркЪ╬╝тАл ╦Т▌итАм0'* ╩О╪Прв╢рвЗ╦И ╦Урв╜рмЬ╓▓ раЦрзН╔╝╨ЬрмЬ╦И реотАл▀╖ ╪╖тАм╨Х тАлраЗ╫ФтАм тАлрб▒╠Ц ╪АтАмржС╦Г ╪Ирв╖ рв╡╩О╪И╦▓рвВ ркЮ▄╣рмЮ тАл рв┐╫ЧтАмрме╩╝ ╬░╒з╦▓ тАл▄Х╦│ ╪АтАм╤ж█░ ╩О╤ж╦▓рвВ ркЮ▄╣ тАл рв┐╫ЧтАмрме╩╝ рва╠Ырв╢рб│╘╗ рдПтАл▄ЦтАм╔╝╨ЬрмЮ ра╣ре╣▄╣рг▒ рбкрдП╒▒ рбврмЮ ра╣ре╣тАл рвВрв┐╫ЧтАмрлж╦Шрв╢ рме╩╝ тАл╫╖тАм╔╛рв┐▀ЯрнгтАл рак█МтАмрнЖ╘п рмЧ▄╣рвВ▀Ярл╜ ╩О╤ж╦▓ рв┐╦У тАл╫╖тАм╔╛┘ХтАл ╦Х╫ЧтАмрнЖ╘прмЬраЖ рв╜тАл ▌жрй╝╪┐тАм╥Я тАл ▄╜╠Ы▌жтАмрнКрйФ рнЩтАл█ПтАм рдПрл▓╘╗ ╠ЫтАл█М┘ВтАмрнг█░тАл рбн┘╕ ргПрбХ █╜▄Ц╦▒┘╕ рбн┘╕ ргПрбХрвХ▀ж ▌Ы┘╕тАм╬░╒з╦▓ ╦│ тАл▄ХтАм╤ж█░╦▓ рдПрбХтАл рбн┘╕рвП▄╣ █┐╦Ч╫Ф рбн┘╕тАм╩О╤ж╦▓ █Шрл╜▀╛ ╨╛рмЮ ╦ЧтАл рбн┘╕█┐тАм тАлраЗраЗ╫ФтАм╘Ы╩О╪И ╧и▀╢рдПрбХтАлре╣┘Х рбн┘╕тАм╦Б╩Г тАл рбн┘╕тАм╥Я рв┐тАл ▌дтАм

┘ХтАл╠Ф █ПтАм╘╗тАл ╪гтАмрк│ркЭ╬┐тАл ╦Х▌лтАмрмЮ╦▓рвВ ╦Хрв┐ ┬Щ ╠С╘╕тАл ╪атАмрк░ркЪ╬╝тАлрвД ▌итАмрмкрб│ рбЯрмЫ ╦п╬н ╩Л╪ЕрнГ╘м ржОрв╝ ╩Л█▒ R ргмра╛ ╩Л╪ЕрнГ╘м рв║ре╖ тАл ╫╜тАмрдУрмк тАл▌Ш▌бтАмрйй▀╗ ╠С╘╕тАл ╪атАмрк░ркЪ╬╝тАлрвД ▌итАмрмктАл█ЙтАмрмб тАлраП╪ГтАм рмЫ╦п 2'$ рнз╦ТтАл ╦Т█║тАмрдРрв│ рв╝╦Е╒о рбЯрмЫ рбТргМ рв║ре╖╦Т ржОрв╝ ╦орж▓ ╓╕╨ЯрйЫ╒╜ рдМрлп тАл ╫╜тАмрдМрлп ра╢ ╩Л█▒тАл█ЙтАмрмб тАлраП╪ГтАм ╩Л╪ЕрнГ╘м рв║тАл ╪╝тАм╦Р╩Л рбТргМ раУрзК╔╣╨ЩтАл▌Ш▌б ╦прбТ▄╢ █║тАмрйй рнШрбЕ тАл┘╡тАм╦отАл рнХ▄УтАм╥Ь

╠ШргОрб┐ рг╡╠Ш 2'$ тАл▌бтАмрмк╦Арнб тАл ╪┤▀Ы┘Ф ╫╜тАм╦Арнб раУтАл █МтАм╦Арнб &36▀╗ тАлраП╪ГтАм рк░ркЪ╬╝ ╦п╔╣ рнАрвЭ рг╡тАл ▌зтАмржОрв╝ ╩ЕрнХ R рбЖ╒╢╬Ь╙┐╔╣ ргм╤грв│рб░╘╕ рб┐рв╝рнХрмЫ ╬д╬д тАл█СтАм╔║рнГ╘м тАл╫┤тАм╔╗ рк░ркЪ╬╝тАлрнЦ ▌итАм╨╗ рнз ╦Трв│рвЖ рв╝╤г ╦Ф╘н рмЯрб┐тАл█ЙтАмрмб рвДрмк тАл█Й╫┤▌бтАмрнаразрб┐ рк░ркЪ╬╝тАлрнЦ ▌итАм╨╗ ╠Ш▀│ тАл╫┤ ╫╜тАм╔╗рб┐ ре░раГ╒о рбЯрмЫ рнЧ╩╛ргМтАл █║тАм╥Ь

- 12 -

┘ХтАл╠Ф █ПтАм╘╗тАл ╪гтАмрк│ркЭ╬┐тАл ╦Х▌лтАмрмЮ╦▓рвВ ╦Хрв┐ ┬Щ ╦прв╝тАл█ЙтАмрнаразрб┐ ╦РргМраз рк░ркЪ╬╝тАл ▌итАм╩ЕрнХ R ╦прв╝тАл█ЙтАмрнаразрб┐ ╦РргМ рбТргМргМрнХ ╒о рй╣рмЫ рбТргМрнз╦ТтАл █║тАм╧жрвД╨Т ╧Э╘м ╩ЕрнХрмв▀Ы рмЮ R 2(&' 81 0'%V╦Трб┐ рнГ╘м ╩ЕрнХ R ╨й╒н ╦РраГ╦п╦Т ╦Р╤нрб░╘╕ ╩Л рг╡рв╖рнГ╘м╦прб┐ ╠С╘╕тАл ╪атАмрк░ркЪ╬╝тАл ▌итАм╦орж▓ тАлрвД ╫╜тАмрмк рдМрбТ ╔╣╬Ь ╦РраГ╦п╔╗ FRXQWU\ FRPSDFW ре░раГ тАл ╫╜тАмрдМрбТ ╥Ь

╔Ь ┘УрмЫрб│ DLG RUSKDQ ▀╗█н ╦орж┤рмЩ╠Ш

┬Щ рдУрмкрбЯрбТрна ре░раГ рнШ╤н рг╡╦п рвЖ╤г ╥Ь ╠С╘╕тАл ╪атАмрк░ркЪ╬╝тАл╪Ь╓к ▌врв║ рб┐▌итАм╘╕ ре░раГрмЩрдМ ▀Жрб▓ тАл▌гтАмроЧ╦п╥Чрб┐ ре░раГ╒о рвД╬М▀к╬н╨Т раДрмЬрб│ рг╡тАлрб░▌зтАм╘╕ рк░ркЪ╬╝тАлрвД рб┐▌итАмрмкрб│ рбЯрмЫ рв│╠Орв│рвЖ ╒╢╤ЕтАлра╛ ▌итАм╦о SRVW 0'* рв║ре╖╦Т ╨│╘║▀╗ ╠ШраГ

╨мтАл┬╖ргПрбХ┬╢ ▌дтАм╒▒ █в╔╜рмЮ╨м ┬З ┬З ┬З ┬З ┬З ┬З ┬З ┬З

ра│ ┘ХтАл рб╡█ПтАмрмжтАл┘╕ рб╢▌ктАмриД╩Зрб╢╠з" ╧╝╔╝ рдПриД▀Ю рмЬ╨Х ╠Ф╘╗тАл ╪гтАмрк│ркЭ╬┐тАлрвЙ▌лтАм╔╝" ┬╡рмЮ╦▓рнЙ┬╢╓Г ╩ИргПрмЬ╨Х рбЙ╒╣ рбХргП рв╜ре║рвВ тАл┘ВтАмрдУрб╡" ра│ ╧╝╦▒╤ж ┘ЦрмЮ ╩О╪ИрдПрбХрб╡ ╧врвВрмЬрдП ▀Йрб╢╠з" JOREDO DLG EXVLQHVV рвВ ▄╣рнКрвХ╨Х ╧╝╦▒рвЙ╔╝" ╦ХраЙ рбХргП╦Чрмнрб╡ ▀▓╓Б╬Я тАл"╠з╬З╪ВтАм ╩О╪Иргп╠А RZQHUVKLS рб╢ рнгтАл┘АтАмрмЬ╨Х ╩ирвЗ тАл┘ВтАмрдУрвЗ╨м рбЙ╒╣╨Х тАл рв╢ргПре╖┘╕тАмроЪ┘Ч█ШрйУ▀╛█░ тАл▀н╪зтАм╬Я▀Ю рмЮ╨м

- 13 -

부산 세계개발원조총회 최종결과와 향후과제

[발제2]

부산총회 최종결과 이행을 위한 한국시민사회의 역할과 전략

민경일

KCOC 이사

- 15 -

부산 세계 개발원조 총회 최종 결과 이행을 위한 한국 시민사회의 역할과 전략

발제자: 민경일(한마음한몸운동본부/KCOC/KoFID) augustine.minn@gmail.com 발제일: 2012. 8. 23 1

배경 의 원조효과성 작업반(WP-Eff.)의 종료 이후 GPEDC(Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation) 출범.

• OECD/DAC

• 부산

총회 결과를 모니터링하기 위한 10개의 Indicators 승인

• UNDP-OECD • 투명성에

승인

공동 사무국 구성

대한 공동의 공개적인 기준에 대한 시민사회의 제안이

- 17 -

10개의 INDICATORS 1. Development Cooperation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities 2. Civil society operates within an environment that maximizes its engagement in and contribution to development 3. Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development 4. Transparency: information on development cooperation is publicly available 5a. Development cooperation is more predictable(annual predictability) 5b. Development cooperation is more predictable(medium-term predictability) 6. Aid is on budgets which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny 7. Mutual accountability among cooperation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews 8. Gender equality and women’s empowerment 9a. Quality of developing country PFM systems 9b. Use of country PFM and procurement systems 10. Aid is untied 3

한국 시민사회의 부산 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP 이행 계획(BY KCOC) 1. 한국 CSO의 역량 및 책무성 강화 1.1. 개발효과성 증진을 위한 사업 수행 역량 강화 1.2.애드보커시 역량 강화 1.3.책무성 강화 2. 한국 정부 및 국내 공여 주체와의 partnership 증대 2.1.시민사회 개발효과성을 위한 Enabling Environment 관련 한국형 지표 개발 및 모니터링 2.2.한국 정부와의 거버넌스 및 partnership 강화 2.3.다양한 공여 기관과의 partnership 증대 3. 국제 CSO들과의 협력 및 연대: CPDE 참여 / 국제 시민사회의 사례 공유 4. 국제 기구를 통한 GPEDC 모니터링 4

- 18 -

KCOC의 GPEDC 이행 구성도

한국 시민사회의 부산 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP 이행 계획(BY KOFID) 1.한국 정부의 부산 Global Partnership 이행 감시 활동 1.1. 한국 ODA의 효과성과 질적 제고를 위한 원조 정책과 체제 구축 감 시 활동 1.2.효과적인 개발 협력을 위한 Partnership 구축과 환경 조성 촉구 활동 2.한국 시민사회의 부산 Global Partnership 실행 방안 2.1.부산 Global Partnership에 대한 인지 제고 및 역량 강화 2.2.부산 Global Partnership 이행을 위한 다자간 협력 강화 2.3.국제 시민사회와의 연대와 Partnership 강화 6

- 19 -

KoFID의 GPEDC 이행 구성도

인지제고 및 역량 강화/ 다자간 협력 강화

ODA 정책과 체 제 구축 감시 / EE 조성 촉구

국제시민사회 연대와의 Partnership 강화

Advocacy 연대 활동 / 이행감시

KCOC 종합 이행 계획의 특징 •

한국 CSO들을 지원하는 방향성 설정 •

국내 CSO들의 사업 수행 및 Advocacy 역량 강화에 초점

•

Istanbul Principle / International Framework 인지제고 위한 세미나 및 교 육 / 컨설팅 지원

•

IADG에 대한 연구 조사 및 자료 발간

•

한국 시민사회 책무성 Framework 개발

•

Enabling Environment에 있어서의 정부, 기업과의 Governance / Partnership 강화 기대

•

국제적 연대 •

CPDE / GPEDC 참여

•

국제 시민사회의 사례 공유위한 컨퍼런스 개최 8

- 20 -

KoFID 이행 계획의 특징 •

정부의 이행 감시에 좀 더 높은 비중

•

ODA의 효과성과 질적 제고를 위한 원조 정책과 체제 구축 감시 활 동: 대정부 요구사항 반영 •

지표별 감시활동에 대한 구체적 계획

•

원조의 비구속화에 대한 지속적 강조

•

지표에 포함되지 않은 분절화 문제 언급

•

EE를 제도와 정책 마련 촉구 차원에서 언급

•

국내 CSO에 대해 인지 제고 및 역량강화 방안 •

•

시민사회 개발효과성 강화 / Advocacy 역량 강화 언급

국제적 연대에서 Advocacy 연대 활동 언급 9

정부의 이행계획안에 대한 요구사항 •

GPEDC에서 공여국 대표로서의 한국 정부의 역할 기대: 개도국에서부터의 발 전 경험을 토대로, partner countries들의 입장도 대변할 수 있는 역할 기대

•

‘한국형’ 모델에 대한 정의와 그 필요성에 대한 사회적 합의 필요

•

투명성에 대한 재 이해 필요, ‘공통이행기준’에 대한 명확한 준수 계획 마련

•

CPS 수립시 partner countries의 ownership 포함 및 단계적 확대

•

100% 비구속화에 대한 계획을 KOICA 사업에 한정 ⇒ 모든 원조를 향한 노 력 필요

•

무상 원조에 한정된 정책 일관성 의제를 유・무상 원조 모두에 확대

•

개발 협력 연대의 정의와 역할에 대한 정확한 정보 공개 필요

- 21 -

ENABLING ENVIRONMENT 구축을 위한 전략 제안 ENABLING ENVIRONMENT: CSO가 자신들의 활동을 펼쳐 나가는 방식에 영향을 주는, 정부, 공적 공 여자 및 공여자 역할을 하는 CSO를 포함한 다른 개발 행위자들이 만들어 낸 정치적 및 정책적 상황 MINIMUM ENABLING STANDARDS: CSO 개발 행위자들이 지속적이고 효과적인 방식으로 개발 과정 에 참여하는 것을 뒷받침하는 것으로서, 법, 규제, 재정, 정보, 정치 및 문화 영역에서의 공여자 및 정 부에 의한 일련의 상호 연관된 좋은 관행

22.#Civil#society#organiza3ons(CSOs)#play#a#vital#role#in#enable#people#to#claim#their# rights,#in#promo3ng#rights=based#approaches,#in#shaping#development#policies#and# partnerships,#and#in#overseeing#their#implementa3on.#They#also#provide#services# in#areas#that#are#complementary#to#those#provided#by#states.#Recognising#this,#we# will:

THE WAY FORWARD ... •

부산 총회 이후 약해진 연대 의식, 관심도 재점검

•

올바른 책무성을 위해 개발 사업에 있어서의 시민사회 내적 기준 준 수/반영 여부 재검토

•

국내적 Best Practice 발굴 및 공유

•

국회 / 대선 정국에서 부산 Partnership 이행 여부 감시 및 촉구

•

Beyond MDGs, Busan, for the Best Development Cooperation, 국내 외적 연대의 지속적 강화

•

From Disinterested Aid, we can make a People-Centered Development. 12

- 22 -

감사합니다.

- 23 -

부산 세계개발원조총회 최종결과와 향후과제

[OECD]

BUSAN PARTNERSHIP FOR EFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION

FOURTH HIGH LEVEL FORUM ON AID EFFECTIVENESS, BUSAN, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, 29 NOVEMBER-1 DECEMBER 2011

- 25 -

BUSAN PARTNERSHIP FOR EFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION FOURTH HIGH LEVEL FORUM ON AID EFFECTIVENESS, BUSAN, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, 29 NOVEMBER-1 DECEMBER 2011

1. We, Heads of State, Ministers and representatives of developing and developed countries, heads of multilateral and bilateral institutions, representatives of different types of public, civil society, private, parliamentary, local and regional organisations meeting here in Busan, Republic of Korea, recognise that we are united by a new partnership that is broader and more inclusive than ever before, founded on shared principles, common goals and differential commitments for effective international development. 2. The nature, modalities and responsibilities that apply to South-South co-operation differ from those that apply to North-South co-operation. At the same time, we recognise that we are all part of a development agenda in which we participate on the basis of common goals and shared principles. In this context, we encourage increased efforts to support effective co-operation based on our specific country situations. The principles, commitments and actions agreed in the outcome document in Busan shall be the reference for South-South partners on a voluntary basis. 3. The world stands at a critical juncture in global development. Poverty and inequality remain the central challenge. The Millennium Declaration sets out our universal mandate for development and, with the target date for the Millennium Development Goals less than four years away, the urgency of achieving strong, shared and sustainable growth and decent work in developing countries is paramount. Moreover, the Declaration identifies that promoting human rights, democracy and good governance are an integral part of our development efforts. Nowhere are our development goals more urgent than in fragile and conflict-affected states. Political will is vital if these challenges are to be addressed. 4. As we reaffirm our development commitments, we realise that the world has changed profoundly since development co-operation began over 60 years ago. Economic, political, social and technological developments have revolutionised the world in which we live. Yet poverty, inequality and hunger persist. Eradicating poverty and tackling the global and regional challenges that have adverse effects on the citizens of developing countries are central to ensuring the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and a more robust and resilient global economy for all. Our success depends on the results and impact of our joint efforts and investments as we address challenges such as health pandemics, climate change, economic downturns, food and fuel price crises, conflict, fragility and vulnerability to shocks and natural disasters. 1

www.busanhlf4.org

1 December 2011

- 27 -

5. We also have a more complex architecture for development co-operation, characterised by a greater number of state and non-state actors, as well as co-operation among countries at different stages in their development, many of them middle-income countries. South-South and triangular cooperation, new forms of public-private partnership, and other modalities and vehicles for development have become more prominent, complementing North-South forms of co-operation. 6. International development co-operation has achieved many positive results. When we met in Monterrey a decade ago, we recognised that increases in volumes of financing for development must be coupled with more effective action to generate sustainable and transparent results for all citizens. Our dialogue in Busan builds on the foundations laid by previous High Level Fora, which have been proven to remain relevant, and which have helped to improve the quality of development co-operation. Yet we recognise that progress has been uneven and neither fast nor far-reaching enough. We each reaffirm our respective commitments and will implement in full the actions to which we have already agreed. 7. We can and must improve and accelerate our efforts. We commit to modernise, deepen and broaden our co-operation, involving state and non-state actors that wish to shape an agenda that has until recently been dominated by a narrower group of development actors. In Busan, we forge a new global development partnership that embraces diversity and recognises the distinct roles that all stakeholders in co-operation can play to support development. 8. Our partnership is founded on a common set of principles that underpin all forms of development co-operation. At the same time, we recognise that the ways in which these principles are applied differ across countries at various stages of development, and among the different types of public and private stakeholders involved. Lessons should be shared by all who participate in development co-operation. We welcome the opportunities presented by diverse approaches to development co-operation, such as South-South co-operation, as well as the contribution of civil society organisations and private actors; we will work together to build on and learn from their achievements and innovations, recognising their unique characteristics and respective merits. 9. Sustainable development results are the end goal of our commitments to effective cooperation. While development co-operation is only part of the solution, it plays a catalytic and indispensable role in supporting poverty eradication, social protection, economic growth and sustainable development. We reaffirm our respective commitments to scale up development cooperation. More effective co-operation should not lead to a reduction in resources for development. Over time, we will aim to increase independence from aid, always taking into account the consequences for the poorest people and countries. In this process, it is essential to examine the interdependence and coherence of all public policies â&#x20AC;&#x201C; not just development policies â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to enable countries to make full use of the opportunities presented by international investment and trade, and to expand their domestic capital markets. 10. As we partner to increase and reinforce development results, we will take action to facilitate, leverage and strengthen the impact of diverse sources of finance to support sustainable and inclusive development, including taxation and domestic resource mobilisation, private investment, aid for trade, philanthropy, non-concessional public funding and climate change finance. At the same time, new financial instruments, investment options, technology and knowledge sharing, and public-private partnerships are called for.

www.busanhlf4.org

1 December 2011

- 28 -

Shared principles to achieve common goals 11. As we embrace the diversity that underpins our partnership and the catalytic role of development co-operation, we share common principles which – consistent with our agreed international commitments on human rights, decent work, gender equality, environmental sustainability and disability – form the foundation of our co-operation for effective development: a)

Ownership of development priorities by developing countries. Partnerships for development can only succeed if they are led by developing countries, implementing approaches that are tailored to country-specific situations and needs.

Focus on results. Our investments and efforts must have a lasting impact on eradicating poverty and reducing inequality, on sustainable development, and on enhancing developing countries’ capacities, aligned with the priorities and policies set out by developing countries themselves.

Inclusive development partnerships. Openness, trust, and mutual respect and learning lie at the core of effective partnerships in support of development goals, recognising the different and complementary roles of all actors.

Transparency and accountability to each other. Mutual accountability and accountability to the intended beneficiaries of our co-operation, as well as to our respective citizens, organisations, constituents and shareholders, is critical to delivering results. Transparent practices form the basis for enhanced accountability.

12.

These shared principles will guide our actions to: a)

Deepen, extend and operationalise the democratic ownership of development policies and processes.

Strengthen our efforts to achieve concrete and sustainable results. This involves better managing for results, monitoring, evaluating and communicating progress; as well as scaling up our support, strengthening national capacities and leveraging diverse resources and initiatives in support of development results.

Broaden support for South-South and triangular co-operation, helping to tailor these horizontal partnerships to a greater diversity of country contexts and needs.

Support developing countries in their efforts to facilitate, leverage and strengthen the impact of diverse forms of development finance and activities, ensuring that these diverse forms of co-operation have a catalytic effect on development.

13. We recognise the urgency with which these actions must be implemented. Beginning implementation now – or accelerating efforts where they are ongoing – is essential if our renewed approach to partnership is to have the maximum possible impact on the realisation of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, as well as on development results over the longer term. We will hold each other accountable for implementing our respective actions in developing countries and at the international level. As we focus on implementing our commitments at the country level, we will form a new, inclusive Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation to support implementation at the political level. 3

www.busanhlf4.org

1 December 2011

- 29 -

Realising change: Complementary actions to reach common goals Inclusion of new actors on the basis of shared principles and differential commitments 14. Today’s complex architecture for development co-operation has evolved from the NorthSouth paradigm. Distinct from the traditional relationship between aid providers and recipients, developing nations and a number of emerging economies have become important providers of South-South development co-operation. They remain developing countries and still face poverty at home. As such, they remain eligible to benefit from development co-operation provided by others, yet they have increasingly taken upon themselves the responsibility to share experiences and cooperate with other developing countries. The Paris Declaration did not address the complexity of these new actors, while the Accra Agenda for Action recognised their importance and specificities. While North-South co-operation remains the main form of development co-operation, South-South co-operation continues to evolve, providing additional diversity of resources for development. At Busan, we now all form an integral part of a new and more inclusive development agenda, in which these actors participate on the basis of common goals, shared principles and differential commitments. On this same basis, we welcome the inclusion of civil society, the private sector and other actors. Improving the quality and effectiveness of development co-operation 15. Progress has been made in advancing the aid effectiveness agenda, yet major challenges persist. Evidence has shown that – despite the challenges encountered in the implementation of our respective commitments – many of the principles underpinning the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and Accra Agenda for Action have contributed to higher quality, more transparent and effective development co-operation. 16. We will sustain our high-level political leadership to ensure that the commitments made here in Busan are implemented. Within this context, those of us that endorsed the mutually agreed actions set out in Paris and Accra will intensify our efforts to implement our respective commitments in full. A growing range of actors – including middle-income countries, partners of South-South and triangular co-operation and civil society organisations – have joined others to forge a broader, more inclusive agenda since Paris and Accra, embracing their respective and different commitments alongside shared principles. 17. Drawing on the evidence generated through periodic monitoring and the independent evaluation of the Paris Declaration, we will be guided by a focus on sustainable results that meet the priority needs of developing countries, and will make the urgently needed changes to improve the effectiveness of our partnerships for development. Ownership, results and accountability 18.

Together, we will increase our focus on development results. To this end: a)

Developing countries’ efforts and plans to strengthen core institutions and policies will be supported through approaches that aim to manage – rather than avoid – risk, including through the development of joint risk management frameworks with providers of development co-operation. 4

www.busanhlf4.org

1 December 2011

- 30 -

Where initiated by the developing country, transparent, country-led and country-level results frameworks and platforms will be adopted as a common tool among all concerned actors to assess performance based on a manageable number of output and outcome indicators drawn from the development priorities and goals of the developing country. Providers of development co-operation will minimise their use of additional frameworks, refraining from requesting the introduction of performance indicators that are not consistent with countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; national development strategies.

We will partner to implement a global Action Plan to enhance capacity for statistics to monitor progress, evaluate impact, ensure sound, results-focused public sector management, and highlight strategic issues for policy decisions.

As we deepen our efforts to ensure that mutual assessment reviews are in place in all developing countries, we encourage the active participation of all development cooperation actors in these processes.

Pursuant to the Accra Agenda for Action, we will accelerate our efforts to untie aid. We will, in 2012, review our plans to achieve this. In addition to increasing value for money, untying can present opportunities for local procurement, business development, employment and income generation in developing countries. We will improve the quality, consistency and transparency of reporting on the tying status of aid.

19. The use and strengthening of developing countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; systems remains central to our efforts to build effective institutions. We will build on our respective commitments set out in the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action to: a)

Use country systems as the default approach for development co-operation in support of activities managed by the public sector, working with and respecting the governance structures of both the provider of development co-operation and the developing country.

Assess jointly country systems using mutually agreed diagnostic tools. Based on the results of these assessments, providers of development co-operation will decide on the extent to which they can use country systems. Where the full use of country systems is not possible, the provider of development co-operation will state the reasons for non-use, and will discuss with government what would be required to move towards full use, including any necessary assistance or changes for the strengthening of systems. The use and strengthening of country systems should be placed within the overall context of national capacity development for sustainable outcomes.

20. We must accelerate our efforts to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of women through development programmes grounded in country priorities, recognising that gender equality and womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s empowerment are critical to achieving development results. Reducing gender inequality is both an end in its own right and a prerequisite for sustainable and inclusive growth. As we redouble our efforts to implement existing commitments we will: a)

Accelerate and deepen efforts to collect, disseminate, harmonise and make full use of data disaggregated by sex to inform policy decisions and guide investments, ensuring in turn that public expenditures are targeted appropriately to benefit both women and men. 5

www.busanhlf4.org

1 December 2011

- 31 -

Integrate targets for gender equality and women’s empowerment in accountability mechanisms, grounded in international and regional commitments.

Address gender equality and women’s empowerment in all aspects of our development efforts, including peacebuilding and statebuilding.

21. Parliaments and local governments play critical roles in linking citizens with government, and in ensuring broad-based and democratic ownership of countries’ development agendas. To facilitate their contribution, we will: a)

Accelerate and deepen the implementation of existing commitments to strengthen the role of parliaments in the oversight of development processes, including by supporting capacity development – backed by adequate resources and clear action plans.

Further support local governments to enable them to assume more fully their roles above and beyond service delivery, enhancing participation and accountability at the sub-national levels.

22. Civil society organisations (CSOs) play a vital role in enabling people to claim their rights, in promoting rights-based approaches, in shaping development policies and partnerships, and in overseeing their implementation. They also provide services in areas that are complementary to those provided by states. Recognising this, we will: a)

Implement fully our respective commitments to enable CSOs to exercise their roles as independent development actors, with a particular focus on an enabling environment, consistent with agreed international rights, that maximises the contributions of CSOs to development.

Encourage CSOs to implement practices that strengthen their accountability and their contribution to development effectiveness, guided by the Istanbul Principles and the International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness.

Transparent and responsible co-operation 23. We will work to improve the availability and public accessibility of information on development co-operation and other development resources, building on our respective commitments in this area. To this end, we will: a)

Make the full range of information on publicly funded development activities, their financing, terms and conditions, and contribution to development results, publicly available subject to legitimate concerns about commercially sensitive information.

Focus, at the country level, on establishing transparent public financial management and aid information management systems, and strengthen the capacities of all relevant stakeholders to make better use of this information in decision-making and to promote accountability.

Implement a common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive and forward-looking information on resources provided through development co6

www.busanhlf4.org

1 December 2011

- 32 -

operation, taking into account the statistical reporting of the OECD-DAC and the complementary efforts of the International Aid Transparency Initiative and others. This standard must meet the information needs of developing countries and non-state actors, consistent with national requirements. We will agree on this standard and publish our respective schedules to implement it by December 2012, with the aim of implementing it fully by December 2015. 24. end:

We will also work to make development co-operation more predictable in its nature. To this

Those of us who committed, through the Accra Agenda for Action, to improve mediumterm predictability will implement fully our commitments in this area, introducing reforms where needed. By 2013, they will provide available, regular, timely rolling three- to fiveyear indicative forward expenditure and/or implementation plans as agreed in Accra to all developing countries with which they co-operate. Other actors will aim to provide developing countries with timely and relevant information on their intentions with regard to future co-operation over the medium term.

25. We welcome the diversity of development co-operation actors. Developing countries will lead consultation and co-ordination efforts to manage this diversity at the country level, while providers of development assistance have a responsibility to reduce fragmentation and curb the proliferation of aid channels. We will ensure that our efforts to reduce fragmentation do not lead to a reduction in the volume and quality of resources available to support development. To this end: a)

We will, by 2013, make greater use of country-led co-ordination arrangements, including division of labour, as well as programme-based approaches, joint programming and delegated co-operation.

We will improve the coherence of our policies on multilateral institutions, global funds and programmes. We will make effective use of existing multilateral channels, focusing on those that are performing well. We will work to reduce the proliferation of these channels and will, by the end of 2012, agree on principles and guidelines to guide our joint efforts. As they continue to implement their respective commitments on aid effectiveness, multilateral organisations, global funds and programmes will strengthen their participation in co-ordination and mutual accountability mechanisms at the country, regional and global levels.

We will accelerate efforts to address the issue of countries that receive insufficient assistance, agreeing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; by the end of 2012 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; on principles that will guide our actions to address this challenge. These efforts will encompass all development co-operation flows.

Providers of development co-operation will deepen and accelerate efforts to address the problem of insufficient delegation of authority to their field staff. They will review all aspects of their operations, including delegation of financial authority, staffing, and roles and responsibilities in the design and implementation of development programmes; and they will implement measures that address the remaining bottlenecks.

www.busanhlf4.org

1 December 2011

- 33 -

Promoting sustainable development in situations of conflict and fragility 26. Fragile states are for the large part off-track to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Achieving these goals will depend on our collective ability to understand the unique challenges facing fragile states, overcome these challenges, and promote foundations for lasting development. We welcome the New Deal developed by the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, including the g7+ group of fragile and conflict-affected states. Those of us who have endorsed the New Deal will pursue actions to implement it and, in doing so, will use: a)

The Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goals (PSGs) – which prioritise legitimate politics, people’s security, justice, economic foundations and revenues and fair services – as an important foundation to enable progress towards the MDGs to guide our work in fragile and conflict-affected states.

FOCUS – a new country-led and country-owned way of engaging in fragile states.

TRUST – a set of commitments to enhance transparency; manage risk to use country systems; strengthen national capacities; and improve the timeliness and predictability of aid – to achieve better results.

Partnering to strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability in the face of adversity 27. We must ensure that development strategies and programmes prioritise the building of resilience among people and societies at risk from shocks, especially in highly vulnerable settings such as small island developing states. Investing in resilience and risk reduction increases the value and sustainability of our development efforts. To this end: a)

Developing countries will lead in integrating resilience to shocks and measures for disaster management within their own policies and strategies.

Responding to the needs articulated by developing countries, we will work together to invest in shock resistant infrastructure and social protection systems for at-risk communities. In addition, we will increase the resources, planning and skills for disaster management at the national and regional levels.

www.busanhlf4.org

1 December 2011

- 34 -

From effective aid to co-operation for effective development 28. Aid is only part of the solution to development. It is now time to broaden our focus and attention from aid effectiveness to the challenges of effective development. This calls for a framework within which: a)

Development is driven by strong, sustainable and inclusive growth.

Governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; own revenues play a greater role in financing their development needs. In turn, governments are more accountable to their citizens for the development results they achieve.

Effective state and non-state institutions design and implement their own reforms and hold each other to account.

Developing countries increasingly integrate, both regionally and globally, creating economies of scale that will help them better compete in the global economy.

To this effect, we will rethink what aid should be spent on and how, in ways that are consistent with agreed international rights, norms and standards, so that aid catalyses development. 29. Effective institutions and policies are essential for sustainable development. Institutions fulfilling core state functions should, where necessary, be further strengthened, alongside the policies and practices of providers of development co-operation, to facilitate the leveraging of resources by developing countries. Developing countries will lead in efforts to strengthen these institutions, adapting to local context and differing stages of development. To this end, we will: a)

Support the implementation of institutional and policy changes led by developing countries, resulting in effective resource mobilisation and service delivery, including national and sub-national institutions, regional organisations, parliaments and civil society.

Assess country institutions, systems and capacity development needs, led by developing countries.

Support the development of improved evidence on institutional performance to inform policy formulation, implementation and accountability, led by developing countries.

Deepen our learning on the determinants of success for institutional reform, exchanging knowledge and experience at the regional and global levels.

South-South and triangular co-operation for sustainable development 30. The inputs to sustainable development extend well beyond financial co-operation to the knowledge and development experience of all actors and countries. South-South and triangular cooperation have the potential to transform developing countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; policies and approaches to service delivery by bringing effective, locally owned solutions that are appropriate to country contexts.

www.busanhlf4.org

1 December 2011

- 35 -

31. We recognise that many countries engaged in South-South co-operation both provide and receive diverse resources and expertise at the same time, and that this should enrich co-operation without affecting a country’s eligibility to receive assistance from others. We will strengthen the sharing of knowledge and mutual learning by: a)

Scaling up – where appropriate – the use of triangular approaches to development cooperation.

Making fuller use of South-South and triangular co-operation, recognising the success of these approaches to date and the synergies they offer.

Encouraging the development of networks for knowledge exchange, peer learning and coordination among South-South co-operation actors as a means of facilitating access to important knowledge pools by developing countries.

Supporting efforts to strengthen local and national capacities to engage effectively in South-South and triangular co-operation.

Private sector and development 32. We recognise the central role of the private sector in advancing innovation, creating wealth, income and jobs, mobilising domestic resources and in turn contributing to poverty reduction. To this end, we will: a)

Engage with representative business associations, trade unions and others to improve the legal, regulatory and administrative environment for the development of private investment; and also to ensure a sound policy and regulatory environment for private sector development, increased foreign direct investment, public-private partnerships, the strengthening of value chains in an equitable manner and giving particular consideration to national and regional dimensions, and the scaling up of efforts in support of development goals.

Enable the participation of the private sector in the design and implementation of development policies and strategies to foster sustainable growth and poverty reduction.

Further develop innovative financial mechanisms to mobilise private finance for shared development goals.

Promote “aid for trade” as an engine of sustainable development, focusing on outcomes and impact, to build productive capacities, help address market failures, strengthen access to capital markets and to promote approaches that mitigate risk faced by private sector actors.

Invite representatives of the public and private sectors and related organisations to play an active role in exploring how to advance both development and business outcomes so that they are mutually reinforcing.

www.busanhlf4.org

1 December 2011

- 36 -

Combating corruption and illicit flows 33. Corruption is a plague that seriously undermines development globally, diverting resources that could be harnessed to finance development, damaging the quality of governance institutions, and threatening human security. It often fuels crime and contributes to conflict and fragility. We will intensify our joint efforts to fight corruption and illicit flows, consistent with the UN Convention Against Corruption and other agreements to which we are party, such as the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. To this end, we will: a)

Implement fully our respective commitments to eradicate corruption, enforcing our laws and promoting a culture of zero tolerance for all corrupt practices. This includes efforts to improve fiscal transparency, strengthen independent enforcement mechanisms, and extend protection for whistleblowers.

Accelerate our individual efforts to combat illicit financial flows by strengthening anti money laundering measures, addressing tax evasion, and strengthening national and international policies, legal frameworks and institutional arrangements for the tracing, freezing and recovery of illegal assets. This includes ensuring enactment and implementation of laws and practices that facilitate effective international co-operation.

Climate change finance 34. Global climate change finance is expected to increase substantially in the medium term. Recognising that this resource flow brings with it new opportunities and challenges, we will endeavour to promote coherence, transparency and predictability across our approaches for effective climate finance and broader development co-operation, including to: a)

Continue to support national climate change policy and planning as an integral part of developing countries’ overall national development plans, and ensure that – where appropriate – these measures are financed, delivered and monitored through developing countries’ systems in a transparent manner.

Continue to share lessons learned in development effectiveness with those entities engaged in climate activities and ensure that broader development co-operation is also informed by innovations in climate finance.

www.busanhlf4.org

1 December 2011

- 37 -

The road ahead: Partnering for progress towards and beyond the MDGs 35. We will hold each other accountable for making progress against the commitments and actions agreed in Busan, alongside those set out in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and Accra Agenda for Action. To this end, we will: a)

At the level of individual developing countries, agree on frameworks based on national needs and priorities for monitoring progress and promoting mutual accountability in our efforts to improve the effectiveness of our co-operation and, in turn, development results. Developing countries will lead in the elaboration of such frameworks which, together with any indicators and targets agreed, will respond to their specific needs and will be grounded in their aid and development policies. The results of these exercises will be made public.

Agree, by June 2012, on a selective and relevant set of indicators and targets through which we will monitor progress on a rolling basis, supporting international and regional accountability for the implementation of our commitments. We will build on the initiatives led by developing countries and learn from existing international efforts to monitor aid effectiveness. We will review these arrangements in the context of the post-MDG framework. We will periodically publish the results of these exercises.

Support initiatives at the national and regional levels led by developing countries that strengthen capacities to monitor progress and evaluate the impact of efforts to improve development effectiveness.

36. We accept that the strengthening of our co-operation and the adherence to both common goals and differential commitments calls for continued high-level political support, as well as an inclusive space for dialogue, mutual learning and accountability at the global level. Regional organisations can and should play an important role in supporting implementation at the country level, and in linking country priorities with global efforts. The UN Development Cooperation Forum is also invited to play a role in consulting on the implementation of agreements reached in Busan. To this end, we will: a)

Establish a new, inclusive and representative Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation to support and ensure accountability for the implementation of commitments at the political level. This Partnership will offer an open platform that embraces diversity, providing a forum for the exchange of knowledge and the regular review of progress.

Agree, by June 2012, on light working arrangements for this Global Partnership, including its membership and opportunities for regular ministerial-level engagement that complements, and is undertaken in conjunction with, other fora.

Call on the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness (WP-EFF) to convene representatives of all countries and stakeholders endorsing this document with a view to reaching agreement on the working arrangements for the Global Partnership â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and the indicators and channels through which global monitoring and accountability will be supported â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in preparation for the phasing out of the WP-EFF and its associated structures in June 2012.

Invite the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations Development Programme to support the effective functioning of the Global Partnership, building on their collaboration to date and their respective mandates and areas of comparative advantage. 12

www.busanhlf4.org

1 December 2011

- 38 -

부산 세계개발원조총회 최종결과와 향후과제

[OECD]

효과적인 개발협력을 위한 부산 파트너십

비공식 번역본(국문)

- 39 -

O⽸ḩ㐑G ⶼ㜡⸬P

䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㡸G 㠸䚐G ⺴㇤G 䑀䏬∼㐡 XUG ␴䚐ⴰạG ⺴㇤㜄G ⯜㢬G ㉔㫸ạG ⵃG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ㢌G ạᴴG 㥉ㇵSG 㣙ḴG ⵃG ␴䖐☘SG ␘㣄G ⵃG 㛅㣄G ὤẠ 㢌G ␴䖐☘SG 㜠⤠G 㡔䝉㢌G ḩḩSG ⴰᴸSG 㐐ⴰ㇠䟀SG ạ䟀G ⵃG 㫴㜡ὤẠ㢌G ␴䖐㢬G 㟤⫠⏈G 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G ạ㥐G ᵐⵐ㡸G 㠸䚐G ḩ䋩㢌G 㠄㾍ḰG ⯝䖐䚌㜄G 㵜ⷸ䞈═G 㢨䚽㡸G ⵈ䈉㡰⦐G ἬG 㛨⏄G ⚀⸨␘G ṅⷈ㠸䚌ḔG 䔠Ḹ㤵㢬G ㇼ⦐㟨G 䑀䏬∼㐡㡰⦐G ␜䚝䚌㜴㢀㡸G 㢬㐑䚌ḔG 㢼␘UG YUG ⇜⇜䝅⥙㢌G ㉥ᷝSG ⵝ㐑G ⵃG 㵹㢸㡴G ⇜⺵䝅⥙ḰG ␘⪨␘UG ┍㐐㜄G 㟤⫠G ⯜▄⏈G ḩ┍㢌G ⯝䖐㝴G ḩ䋩㢌G 㠄㾍㜄G ὤ㸼䚐G ᵐⵐG 㢌㥐㢌G 䚐G ⺴⺸㡰⦐G 㵬㜠䚐␘⏈G ᶷ㡸G 㢬㥉䚐␘UG 㢨⤠䚐G ⬙⢱㜄㉐SG 㟤⫠⏈G ạⷸG ㇵ䞝㜄G ♤⢰G 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G 䝅⥙㡸G 㫴㠄䚌⏈G ⊬⥙㡸G 㥐Ḕ䚔G ᶷ㡸G ⓹⥘䚐␘UG ⺴㇤㜄㉐G 䚝㢌═G ᷤḰⱬ㉐㢌G 㠄㾍SG 㚱㋁ḰG 䚽┍㡴G 㣄ⵐ㤵㢬G 㠄㾍䚌㜄G ⇜⇜䝅⥙G 㵬㜠㨰㷨㢌G 㵬ḔᴴG ╔G ᶷ㢨␘U ZUG 㤸G ㉬᷸⏈G 㫴ἼG 㩅␴䚐G ὤ⦐㜄G ㉐G 㢼␘UG ⽼ḘḰG ⺼䓽☥㡴G 㜠㤸䢼G 䚩㐠G Ḱ㥐⦐G ⇜㙸G 㢼␘UG ㇼ㷐≸ ㉔㛬Ot G k P㡴G ⸨䓬㤵㢬G ᵐⵐG Ḱ㥐☘㡸G ㉘㥉䚼㡰⮤SG ㇼ㷐≸ᵐⵐ⯝䖐Otkn PG ␠㉥G 㐐㥄㢨G ⺼ḰG [≸ⵊ㜄G ⇜㫴G 㙾㡴G 㐐㥄㜄㉐G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ㢌G ᵉ䚌ḔSG 䚜‌䚌⏈SG 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚐G ㉥㣙ḰG 㛅㫼㢌G 㢰㣄⫠G 䞉⸨⪰G 㐐Ἵ䢼G ␠㉥䚨㚰G 䚌⏈G ㇵ䞝㜄G 㷌䚨G 㢼␘UG ❄䚐SG ㇼ㷐≸㉔㛬㡴G 㢬ỀSG ⴰ㨰㨰㢌㝴G ㉔㥉O蓙詸P㢨G ᵐⵐ㡸G 㠸䚐G 㟤⫠㢌G ⊬⥙㢌G 㩅㟈䚐G 㟈㋀⢰ḔG 㥉㢌䚐␘UG 㼜㚱ạḰG ⺸㣵ạ 㜄㉐G 㢨⤠䚐G 㟤⫠㢌G ᵐⵐG ⯝䖐⪰G ␠㉥䚌⏈G ᶷ㡴G ⒈㟥G 㐐Ἵ䚐G ⱬ㥐㢨␘UG 㢨⤠䚐G ⓸㤸Ḱ㥐☘㡸G 䚨ᷤ 䚌ὤG 㠸䚨㉐⏈G 㥉㾌㤵G 㢌㫴ᴴG 䙸㍌㤵㢨␘UG [UG 㟤⫠⏈G ᵐⵐ㜄G ␴䚐G 㢌㫴⪰G 㣠䞉㢬䚌⮨㉐SG ]W㜠G ≸G 㤸G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㢨G 㐐㣅═G 㢨⣌G ㉬᷸ᴴG 䆠᷀G ⷴ䞈䚼㢀㡸G 㢬㫴䚌ḔG 㢼␘UG ᷱ㥐㤵SG 㥉㾌㤵SG ㇠䟀㤵SG ὤ㍔㤵G ⵐ㤸㡰⦐G ㉬ㇵ㢨G 䟁ὤ㤵㡰⦐G ⷴ䚼㡰⇌SG 㜠㤸䢼G ⽼ḘḰG ⺼䓽☥SG ὤ㙸G ⱬ㥐ᴴG 㫴㋁╌ḔG 㢼␘UG ㇼ㷐≸ᵐⵐ⯝䖐⪰G ␠㉥䚌ḔG ⯜▄⪰G 㠸䚨G ⸨␘G ᷠ㐘䚌ḔSG 䟀⸩⥙G 㢼⏈G ㉬᷸G ᷱ㥐⪰G Ạ㻉䚌ὤG 㠸䚨㉐⏈G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ㢌G ạⴰ☘㜄᷀G ⺴㥉㤵㢬G 㜵䛙㡸G ↰㾌⏈G ⽼ḘḰG 㜠䇴G ⷈ㉬᷸㤵SG 㫴㜡㤵㢬G ⱬ㥐☘㢨G ⵌ☐㐐G 䚨ᷤ╌㛨㚰G 䚐␘UG 㟤⫠㢌G ㉥ḩ㡴G 㫼⸅SG ὤ䟸G ⷴ䞈SG ᷱὤG 㾜㷨SG 㐑⣽G ⵃG 㜤⨀G ᴴᷝ㢌G 㠸ὤSG ⺸㣵SG 㼜㚱㉥SG 㻝ᷝḰG 㣄㜤㣠䚨㜄G ␴䚐G 㼜㚱㉥G ☥ḰG ᵍ㡴G ⱬ㥐㜄G ␴㷌䚌⮨㉐G 㟤⫠G ḩ┍㢌G ⊬⥙ḰG 䍠㣄⦐G 㛯㡴G ᷤḰ㝴G ἬG 㜵䛙㜄G 㟤⫠ᴴG 㛰⫼⇌G Ḵ㐠㡸G ὤ㟬㢨⏈ᴴ㜄G ␠⥘G 㢼␘UG \UG 㟤⫠⏈G ❄䚐G ⸨␘G ⬂㡴G ạᴴG ⵃG ⽸ạᴴG 㨰㷨☘SG ␘㍌㢌G 㩅㫸ạ㡸G 䔠䚜䚐G ␘㛅䚐G ⵐ㤸G ␜᷸㜄G 㢼⏈G ạᴴ☘G ᴸ㢌G 䝅⥙㡸G 䔠䚜䚐G ⸨␘G ⸩㣕䚐G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 㷨᷸⪰G ᵊḔG 㢼␘UG ⇜⇜G ⵃG ㇰᴵ䝅⥙SG ㇼ⦐㟨G 䝉䈐㢌G ⴰḴ䝅⥙SG 㜠䇴G ␘⪬G 䝉䈐㝴G ㍌␜㡰⦐G 㢨⨜㛨㫴⏈G ᵐⵐ㢌G 㩅㟈㉥㢨G 䀘㫴⮨㉐G ⇜⺵G 䝅⥙㡸G ⸨㝸䚌ḔG 㢼␘UG ]UG ạ㥐ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㡴G Ἤ┍㙼G ⬂㡴G ὁ㥉㤵㢬G ㉥Ḱ⪰G 㛯㛼␘UG XW≸G 㤸G ⯠䊀⤼㢨G 䟀㢌㜄㉐G 㟤⫠⏈G ᵐⵐ 㣠㠄G 㫑␴㝴G 䚜‌SG ⯜☔G ạⴰ☘㡸G 㠸䚐G 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚌ḔG 䍠⮹䚐G ᷤḰ⪰G 㛯㡸G ㍌G 㢼⏈G ⸨␘G 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G 䚽┍㢨G 䙸㟈䚜㡸G 㢬㐑䚌㜴␘UG ⺴㇤㹑䟀G ⊰㢌⏈G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㢌G 㫼G 䛙ㇵ㜄G ␴䚐G ὤ㜠ᴴG 㢹㫑═G 㫴⇐G ㉬᷸ᵐⵐ㠄㦤㹑䟀㜄㉐G 㛯㡴G ㉥Ḱ㜄G ὤⵌ㡸G ▄ḔG 㢼␘UG Ἤ⤠⇌G 㟤⫠⏈G ἬG 㫸㤸㢨G ⺼ἔ䝉㤵㢨ḔSG ἬG ㋁⓸㝴G 㜵䛙G 㽕⮨㜄㉐G 㻝⺸䚌㫴G 㙾㚌㢀㡸G 㣄ᴵ䚌ḔG 㢼␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G ᴵ㣄㢌G 㚱㋁㡸G ␘㐐G

TG XG T

- 41 -

䞉㢬䚌ḔSG 㢨⴬G 䚝㢌䚐G 䚽┍☘㡸G 㻝㐘䢼G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG ^UG 㟤⫠⏈G 㟤⫠㢌G ⊬⥙㡸G ᵐ㉔䚌ḔSG ⸨␘G ᴴ㋁䞈䚔G ㍌G 㢼㡰⮤G ❄G Ἤ⤻᷀G 䚨㚰G 䚐␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G 㺐ἰᾀ㫴G ⽸Ẅ㤵G 䝅㋀䚐G ⷈ㠸㢌G ᵐⵐG 㨰㷨☘⬀㢨G 㵬㜠䚼⒌G 㢌㥐G ㉘㥉G Ḱ㥉㜄G 㵬㜠䚌ὤ⪰G 䢠⬑䚌⏈G ạᴴG ⵃG ⽸ạᴴG 㨰㷨☘㡸G 䔠㟝䚌⮨㉐SG 㟤⫠㢌G 䝅⥙㡸G ⵐ㤸SG 㐠䞈SG 䞉␴䚌Ḕ㣄G 䚐␘UG ⺴㇤㹑䟀㜄㉐G 㟤⫠ ⏈G ␘㛅㉥㡸G 䔠㟝䚌ḔSG ⯜☔G 㨰㷨☘㢨G ᵐⵐ㡸G 㫴㠄䚌⏈⒤G ᴵ㣄㢌G ⓹䏭䚐G 㜡䚔㢨G 㢼㢀㡸G 㢬㥉䚌⏈G ㇼ⦐㟨G ἴ⦐ⷀG ᵐⵐG 䑀䏬∼㐡㡸G ᷤ㉥䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG _UG 㟤⫠㢌G 䑀䏬∼㐡㡴G ⯜☔G 䝉䈐㢌G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㡸G 㠸䚐G ḩ䋩═G 㠄㾍☘㡸G ⵈ䈉㡰⦐G 䚌⮤SG 㢨⤠䚐G 㠄㾍☘㢨G 㤵㟝╌⏈G ⵝ㐑㡴G ᴵὤG ␘⪬G ⵐ㤸G ␜᷸㜄G 㢼⏈G ạᴴ☘㜄㉐SG Ἤ⫠ḔG 㢨㜄G 㵬㜠䚌⏈G ⴰḴG 㨰㷨☘㢌G 㡔䝉㜄G ♤⢰G ␘⪨␘⏈G 㥄㡸G 㢬㥉䚐␘UG ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㜄G 㵬㜠䚌⏈G ⯜☔G 㨰㷨☘㢨G 㛯㡴G Ẅ䟼㡴G ḩ㡔╌ 㛨㚰G 䚐␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G ⇜⇜䝅⥙SG 㐐ⴰ␜㷨G ⵃG ⴰᴸG 㨰㷨☘㢌G 㵬㜠㝴G ᵍ㡴G ␘㛅䚐G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 㥅ἰⷉ 㜄G ♤⢰G 㵱㻐╌⏈G ㇼ⦐㟨G ὤ䟀☘㡸G 䞌㜵䚌ḔSG Ἤ⤠䚐G ᵐⵐ㨰㷨☘㢌G Ḕ㡔䚐G 䏭㬉ḰG ᴵᴵ㢌G 㣙㥄㡸G 㢬㥉䚌⮤SG Ἤ☘㢨G 㛯㡴G ㉥Ḱ㝴G 䜵㐔㡸G ⵤ㟤ὤG 㠸䚨G 䝅⥙䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG `UG 㟤⫠ᴴG 㫴䛙䚌⏈G 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G 䝅⥙㢌G 㺐㦹G ⯝䖐⏈G 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚐G ᵐⵐG ㉥Ḱ㢨␘UG ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㡴G Ɒ⦔G 䚨 ᷤ㵹㢌G 㤸⺴⏈G 㙸⏼㫴⬀SG ⽼Ḙ䌨㾌SG ㇠䟀⸨㣙SG ᷱ㥐㉥㣙SG 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚐G ᵐⵐ㜄G 㢼㛨G 㸽⬘㤵㢨⮤G ⺼ᴴᷤ䚐G 㜡䚔㡸G 䚐␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㡸G 㫑㫸䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G ᴵ㣄㢌G 㚱㋁㡸G 㣠䞉㢬䚐␘UG ⸨␘G 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G 䝅⥙㡴G ᵐⵐG 㣠㠄㢌G ᵄ㋀⦐⏈G 㢨㛨㫴㫴G 㙾㙸㚰G 䚐␘UG 㚒㡰⦐G 㟤⫠⏈G 㺐⽼㽩ḰG 㺐⽼ạ 㜄G ⴬㾌⏈G 㜵䛙㡸G Ḕ⥘䚌⮨㉐G 㠄㦤㜄G ␴䚐G 㢌㦨⓸⪰G 㨸㜠ᴴ㚰G 䚐␘UG ┍G Ḱ㥉㜄㉐G ␜㍐䢼G ᵐⵐG 㥉㵹⬀㢨G 㙸⏼⢰G 㤸㷨G ḩḩ㥉㵹㢌G ㇵ䝬G 㢌㦨㉥ḰG 㢰Ḵ㉥㡸G 䙸䢼G 䞉㢬䚜㡰⦐㒜G ⯜☔G ạᴴ☘㢨G ạ㥐G 䍠㣄㝴G Ẅ㜡G ⵃG ạ⇨G 㣄⸬㐐㣙㢌G 䞉␴㜄G ♤⪬G ὤ䟀⪰G 㺐␴䚐G 䞐㟝䚔G ㍌G 㢼⓸⦑G 䚨㚰G 䚐␘UG XWUG ᵐⵐG ㉥Ḱ⪰G 㫑␴䚌ḔG ᵉ䞈䚌ὤG 㠸䚨G 䝅⥙䚌⮨㉐G 㟤⫠⏈G ㉬ἼḰG ạ⇨G 㣠㠄SG ⴰᴸG 䍠㣄SG ⱨ㜡㡸G 㠸䚐G 㠄㦤SG 㣄㉔G 䞐┍SG 㛅䛼㉥G ḩ㤵G 㣄ἼSG ὤ䟸ⷴ䞈G 㣠㠄G ☥G 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚌⮤G 䔠Ḹ㤵㢬G ᵐⵐ 㜄G ὤ㜠䚌⏈G ␘㛅䚐G 㣠㠄☘㢌G 䟜Ḱ⪰G 䞐㉥䞈䚌ḔG ᵉ䞈䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G 㦤㾌⪰G 㼜䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㢨㝴G ┍㐐㜄SG ㇼ⦐㟨G Ἴ㡩G ㍌␜SG 䍠㣄G ⵝ㐑SG ὤ㍔G ⵃG 㫴㐑㢌G ḩ㡔SG ⴰḴG 䝅⥙㢨G 㦤㋁䢼G ⫼⥜╔G 䙸㟈ᴴG 㢼␘UG G

ḩ┍㢌G ⯝䖐⪰G ␠㉥䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G ḩ䋩G 㠄㾍G XXUG 㟤⫠⏈G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㢌G ἰᴸ㢨G ╌⏈G ␘㛅㉥ḰG ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㢌G 㸽⬘㤵G 㜡䚔㡸G ㍌㟝䚌⮨㉐SG 㢬ỀSG 㛅㫼㢌G 㢰㣄⫠SG 㛅㉥䓽☥SG 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚐G 䞌ᷱG ⵃG 㣙㚔㜄G Ḵ䚐G ạ㥐㤵G 䚝㢌☘㡸G ⵈ䈉㡰⦐SG 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G ᵐⵐ㡸G 㠸䚐G 䝅⥙㢌G 䋔␴⪰G 䝉㉥䚌⏈G 㙸⣌㢌G ḩ䋩G 㠄㾍☘㡸G ḩ㡔䚐␘UG G

G G G PG ᵐⵐG 㟤㉔Ḱ㥐㜄G ␴䚐G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘㢌G 㨰㢬㢌㐑UG ᵐⵐ㡸G 㠸䚐G 䑀䏬∼㐡㡴G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘㢨G 㩅㐠㢨G ╌㛨G ạⷸG ㇵ䞝ḰG 䙸㟈㜄G ⬒㻌G 㥅ἰⷉ㡸G ㇠㟝䚔G ⚀⬀㢨G ㉥ḩ䚔G ㍌G 㢼␘UG

G G G PG ᷤḰG 㩅㐠UG 㟤⫠㢌G 䍠㣄㝴G ⊬⥙㡴G ⽼Ḙ䌨㾌SG ⺼䓽☥G ᵄ㋀SG 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚐G ᵐⵐSG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘㢌G 㜡⣽㜄G 㫴㋁㤵㢬G 㜵䛙㡸G ⴬㸄㚰G 䚌⮤SG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘㢨G 㥉䚐G 㟤㉔Ḱ㥐G ⵃG 㥉㵹ḰG 㢰㾌╌⓸⦑G 㡔㫴䚨㚰G 䚐␘UG

TG YG T

- 42 -

G G G PG 䔠㟝㤵㢬G ᵐⵐG 䑀䏬∼㐡UG 㜨⫤G 䈐⓸SG 㐔⧤SG ㇵ䝬G 㦨㩅ḰG 䚍㏩㡴G ᵐⵐG ⯝䖐⪰G ␠㉥䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G 䑀䏬∼㐡㢌G 䚩㐠㢨⮤SG ⯜☔G ᵐⵐG 㨰㷨☘㢌G 㵜ⷸ㤵㢨⮨㉐⓸G ⸨㝸㤵㢬G 㜡䚔㡸G 㢬㥉䚐␘U

G G G PG 䍠⮹㉥ḰG ㉐⦐㜄G ␴䚐G 㵹ⱨ㉥ UG ㇵ䝬G 㵹ⱨ㉥ḰG 䝅⥙㢌G ㍌䝐㣄☘ḰG ᴵ㣄㢌G ạⴰ☘SG ὤḴSG 㡔 Ề㣄G ⵃG Ḵ⥜G 㨰㷨㜄G ␴䚐G 㵹ⱨ㉥㡴G ⬘㟤G 㩅㟈䚌␘UG 䍠⮹䚐G 䞐┍㡴G 䛙ㇵ═G 㵹ⱨ㉥㡸G ᴴ㥬㝘⏈G ἰᴸ㢨G ═␘UG XYUG 㢨⤠䚐G ḩ䋩═G 㠄㾍☘㡴G ␘㢀ḰG ᵍ㡴G 㟤⫠㢌G 䚽┍㡸G 㢨ↀG ᶷ㢨␘UG

G G G PG ᵐⵐG 㥉㵹G ⵃG 䘸⦐㉬㏘㢌G ⴰ㨰㤵G 㨰㢬㢌㐑㡸G 㐠䞈SG 䞉␴SG 㟨㟝䚐␘UG G G G G PG Ạ㷨㤵㢨ḔG 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚐G ᷤḰ⪰G 㛯ὤG 㠸䚐G ⊬⥙㡸G ᵉ䞈䚐␘UG 㢨⪰G 㠸䚨㉐⏈G ᷤḰG 㩅㐠㢌G Ḵ⫠G ᵐ㉔SG ⯜⏼䉤⫵SG 㫸㤸G ㇵ䞝G 䓽ᴴ㝴G Ἤ⤠䚐G 䓽ᴴ㢌G 㤸␠G ㄄⬀G 㙸⏼⢰G 㫴㠄ἐ⯜G 䞉␴SG ạᴴG 㜡⣽G ᵉ䞈SG ᵐⵐG ㉥Ḱ⪰G ᴴ㥬㝘⏈G ␘㛅䚐G 㣠㠄ḰG 㢨⏼㊈䐤⽀㢌G 䞐㟝㢨G 䙸㟈䚌␘UG

G G G PG ⇜⇜G ⵃG ㇰᴵ䝅⥙㜄G ␴䚐G 㫴㠄㡸G 䞉␴䚌ḔSG 㢨⤠䚐G ㍌䓽㤵G 䑀䏬∼㐡㢨G ᵐⷸG ạᴴG ㇵ䞝ḰG 䙸㟈㜄G ⬒㻈⓸⦑G 㫴㠄䚐␘UG

G G G PG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘㢨G ␘㛅䚐G 䝉䈐㢌G ᵐⵐG 㣠㠄ḰG 䞐┍㢨G ᵊ⏈G 㜵䛙㡸G 㫑㫸SG 䞐㟝SG ᵉ䞈䚌ḔSG 㢨 ⤠䚐G ␘㛅䚐G 䝉䈐㢌G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 䞐┍㢨G ᵐⵐ㜄G 㸽⬘G 㜡䚔㡸G 䚔G ㍌G 㢼⓸⦑G 㫴㠄䚐␘UG G G XZUG 㟤⫠⏈G 㢨⤠䚐G 䚽┍☘㢨G 㦤㋁䢼G 㢨䚽╌㛨㚰G 䚜㡸G 㢬㐑䚌ḔG 㢼␘UG 㟤⫠㢌G ㇼ⦐㟨G 䑀䏬∼㐡㢨G YWX\≸ᾀ㫴G ㇼ㷐≸ᵐⵐ⯝䖐⪰G ␠㉥䚌⏈⒤G 㢼㛨G 㺐␴㢌G 䟜Ḱ⪰G ⵐ䡌䚌ḔSG 㣙ὤ㤵㢬G ᵐⵐG ㉥Ḱ ⪰G ᴴ㥬㝘ὤG 㠸䚨㉐⏈G 㫴ἼG 㢨䚽䚌⏈G ˀG ❄⏈G 䜸㣠G Ἤ⤠䚐G ⊬⥙☘㢨G 㫸䚽G 㩅㢰G ⚀⏈G Ἤᶷ㡸G ᴴ ㋁䞈䚌⏈G TG ᶷ㢨G 䙸㍌㤵㢨␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạG 䜸㣙ḰG ạ㥐㇠䟀㜄㉐G ᴵ㣄㢌G 䚽┍㡸G 㢨䚽䚌⏈ ⒤G 㵹㢸ᵄ㡸G ᴴ㫼G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạG 䜸㣙㜄㉐G 㟤⫠㢌G 㚱㋁㡸G 㢨䚽䚌⏈⒤G 㸼㥄㡸G ▄ḔSG 㥉㾌㤵G 㵜㠄㜄㉐G 㢨䚽㡸G 㫴㠄䚌ὤG 㠸䚨G ㇼ⦡ḔSG 䔠㟝㤵㢬G 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㡸G 㠸䚐G ἴ⦐ⷀG 䑀䏬∼㐡㡸G Ạ㻉䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG

ⷴ䞈㢌G 㐘䜸G aG ḩ┍㢌G ⯝䖐G 㐘䜸㡸G 㠸䚐G ⸨㝸㤵㢬G 䚽┍ ḩ䋩㢌G 㠄㾍ḰG 㵜ⷸ䞈═G 㢨䚽㜄G ⵈ䈉㡸G █G ㇼ⦐㟨G ᵐⵐ㨰㷨㢌G 䔠㟝 X[UG 㝘⏌⇔㢌G ⸩㣕䚐G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 㷨᷸⏈G ⇜⺵䝅⥙㢌G 䑜⤠␘㢸㜄㉐⺴䉤G 㫸䞈䚼␘UG 㠄㦤G ḩ㜠ạḰG ㍌㠄 ạᴸG Ḵ᷸㢬G 㤸䋩㤵㢬G ⇜⺵䝅⥙Ḱ⏈G ␘⪨᷀SG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạḰG 㐔䢙ạ☘㡴G ⇜⇜䝅⥙㢌G 㩅㟈䚐G 㥐 ḩạ㢨G ╌㛼␘UG Ἤ☘㡴G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ㢌G 㫴㠸⪰G 㡔㫴䚌ḔG 㢼ḔSG ạ⇨㤵㡰⦐G ⽼ḘG ⱬ㥐⪰G 㙼ḔG 㢼␘UG 㢨㜄G ♤⢰SG Ἤ☘㡴G ␘⪬G ạᴴ☘㢨G 㥐ḩ䚌⏈G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㢌G 䝐䈑㡸G 㛯㡸G ㍌G 㢼㫴⬀SG 㥄㵜G ␘⪬G ᵐ ⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘ḰG ᷱ䜌㡸G ḩ㡔䚌ḔG 䝅⥙䚌⥘⏈G 㵹㢸㡸G 㫴ḔG 㢼␘UG 䑀⫠㉔㛬㡴G 㢨⤠䚐G ㇼ⦐㟨G ᵐⵐ㨰㷨 ☥㣙㜄G ♤⪬G ⸩㣕㉥㡸G ␘⨜㫴G 㙾㚌㫴⬀SG 㙸䆠⢰䚽┍᷸䟁㡴G Ἤ☘㢌G 㩅㟈㉥ḰG 䏭㍌㉥㡸G 㢬㥉䚌㜴 ␘UG ⇜⺵䝅⥙㡴G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㢌G 㨰⪌⦐G ⇜㙸㢼㫴⬀SG ⇜⇜䝅⥙㡴G 㫴㋁㤵㡰⦐G 㫸䞈䚌ḔG 㢼ḔSG ᵐⵐ㡸G

TG ZG T

- 43 -

㠸䚐G ␘㛅䚐G 㻈ᴴG ᵐⵐ㣠㠄㡸G 㥐ḩ䚌ḔG 㢼␘UG 㢨㥐G ⺴㇤㜄㉐G 㟤⫠G ⯜▄⏈G 㢨☘G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 㨰㷨☘㢨G ḩ┍㢌G ⯝䖐SG ḩ䋩㢌G 㠄㾍ḰG 㵜ⷸ䞈═G ḩ㚱㡸G ὤⵌ㡰⦐G 㵬㜠䚌⏈G ㇼ⦡ḔG ⸨␘G 䔠㟝㤵㢬G ᵐⵐG 㢌㥐㢌G 㢰⺴⺸㢨G ╌㛼␘UG ┍㢰䚐G ⬙⢱㜄㉐G 㐐ⴰ㇠䟀SG ⴰᴸ⺸㚰㝴G ␘⪬G ᵐⵐ㨰㷨☘㢌G 㵬㜠⪰G 䞌㜵䚐 ␘UG

ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㢌G 㫼ḰG 䟜Ḱ㉥G ᵐ㉔ X\UG Ἤ┍㙼G 㠄㦤䟜Ḱ㉥G 㢌㥐ᴴG ⵐ㤸䚨G 㞈㡰⇌SG 㜠㤸䢼G 㨰㟈䚐G ⓸㤸G Ḱ㥐☘㢨G ⇜㙸㢼␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G ᴵ㣄㢌G 㚱㋁㡸G 㢨䚽䚌⏈G Ḱ㥉㜄㉐G ⱬ㥐☘㜄G 㫵⮨䚼㢀㜄⓸G ⺼Ạ䚌ḔSG 㠄㦤䟜Ḱ㉥㜄G Ḵ䚐G 䑀⫠㉔㛬 Ow G k PḰG 㙸䆠⢰䚽┍᷸䟁Oh G h G G h P㢌G ἰᴸ㢨G ╌⏈G 㜠⤠G 㠄㾍☘㡴G ⸨␘G ⋆㡴G ㍌㨴㢌SG 䍠⮹䚌⮤SG 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㜄G ὤ㜠䚼㢀㢨G 㢹㫑╌㛼␘UG X]UG 㟤⫠⏈G 㢨ḧG ⺴㇤㹑䟀㜄㉐G 䚝㢌═G 㚱㋁☘㢨G 㢨䚽╌⓸⦑G 㟤⫠㢌G Ḕ㠸ἽG 㥉㾌㤵G ⫠⒈㐡㡸G 㡔㫴䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㢨⤠䚐G ⬙⢱㜄㉐SG 䑀⫠㝴G 㙸䆠⢰㜄㉐G 䚝㢌═G 䚽┍☘㡸G ⽸㨴䚐G 㟤⫠G ␭㇠㣄☘㡴G ᴵ 㣄㢌G 㚱㋁㡸G 㻝㐘䢼G 㢨䚽䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G ⊬⥙㡸G ⵤᴴ䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 䑀⫠㝴G 㙸䆠⢰G 㢨䟸G 㩅㫸ạSG ⇜⇜V ㇰᴵ䝅⥙G 㵬㜠ạḰG 㐐ⴰ㇠䟀G ␜㷨⪰G 䔠䚜䚐G ␘㛅䚐G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 㨰㷨☘㢨G ḩ䋩㢌G 㠄㾍㡸G ⵈ䈉㡰⦐G ᴵᴵ㢌G 㵜ⷸ䞈═G 㚱㋁㡸G 㢬㥉䚌⮨㉐SG ⸨␘G 䔠Ḹ㤵㢨ḔSG 䔠㟝㤵㢬G 㢌㥐⪰G 䝉㉥䚌⏈⒤G 㵬㜠䚨G 㞈␘UG X^UG 㟤⫠⏈G 䑀⫠㉔㛬㢌G 㨰ὤ㤵㢬G 㥄ᶴḰG ⓹⫱㤵㢬G 䓽ᴴ⪰G 䋩䚨G 㛯㡴G 㫑ᶤ⪰G ⵈ䈉㡰⦐SG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ㢌G 㟤㉔㤵㢬G 䙸㟈⪰G 㻝㦥㐐䇘⏈G 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚐G ᷤḰ㜄G 㸼㥄㡸G ⬒㻤SG ᵐⵐ㡸G 㠸䚐G 䑀䏬∼㐡㢌G 䟜Ḱ㉥㡸G ᵐ㉔䚌⏈⒤G 䙸㟈䚐G 㐐Ἵ䚐G ⷴ䞈☘㡸G 㢨⨜㛨ᴼG ᶷ㢨␘UG

㨰㢬㢌㐑SG ᷤḰSG Ἤ⫠ḔG 㵹ⱨ㉥G X_UG 㟤⫠⏈G ␘䚜‌G ᵐⵐG ㉥Ḱ㜄G ⒈㟥G 㨰⥙䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㢨⪰G 㠸䚨SG

G G G PG ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 㥐ḩ㣄☘ḰG 䚜‌G ḩ┍㢌G 㠸ὤḴ⫠G 䘸⤼㢸㠀䆠G ᵐⵐG ☥㡸G 䋩䚨G 㠸ὤ⪰G ˀG 䙰䚌⏈G ␴㐔G TG Ḵ⫠䚌⏈G 㥅ἰⷉ㡸G 䋩䚐G 䚩㐠G 㥐⓸㝴G 㥉㵹㡸G ᵉ䞈䚌⥘⏈G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘㢌G ⊬⥙ḰG ᷸䟁㡸G 㫴㠄䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG

G G G PG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ㢌G 㢨⏼㊈䐤⽀⦐G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ㢨G ㉘㥉䚐G ᵐⵐG 㟤㉔Ḱ㥐㝴G ⯝䖐⪰G ⵈ䈉㡰⦐G 㤵㥉G ㍌㢌G ㇤㻐SG ㉥ḰG 㫴䖐⪰G 䞐㟝䚨G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạG 㨰⓸㢌G 䜸㣙㜄㉐㢌G 䍠⮹䚐G ㉥ḰG 䘸⤼㢸㠀䆠㝴G 䙀⣟䔰㡸G ⯜☔G Ḵ⥜G ᵐⵐ㨰㷨㢌G ḩ┍㢌G ⓸Ạ⦐G 㵸䈑䚌ḔSG ⯜☔G Ḵ⥜G 㨰㷨☘ḰG 䚜‌G ㉥Ḱ⪰G 䓽ᴴ䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 㥐ḩ㣄☘㡴G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘㜄᷀G ⺴ᴴ㤵㢬G 䘸⤼㢸㠀䆠G 㤵㟝㡸G 㺐㋀䞈䚌ḔSG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ㢌G ᵐⵐ㤸⣩ḰG 㢰㾌╌㫴G 㙾㡴G ㉥ḰG 㫴䖐⪰G 㟈Ạ䚌㫴G 㙾㡸G ᶷ㢨␘UG

G G G PG 㟤⫠⏈G 㫸㤸G ㇵ䞝㡸G 㥄ᶴ䚌ḔSG 㜵䛙㡸G 䓽ᴴ䚌ḔSG ḩḩ⺴ⱬ㢨G ㉥ḰG 㩅㐠㤵㡰⦐G ᶨ㤸䚌᷀G Ḵ⫠ ╌⓸⦑G 䚌ḔSG 㥉㵹G ᷤ㥉㡸G 㠸䚐G 㤸⣩㤵G ㇠㙼☘㢌G ἐ⮹㡸G 㟝㢨䚌᷀G 䚌⏈G 䋩᷸G 㜡⣽㡸G ᵉ䞈䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G ἴ⦐ⷀG 䚽┍᷸䟁㢌G 㢨䚽㜄G 䝅⥙䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG

G G G PG 㟤⫠⏈G ⯜☔G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ㜄㉐G ㇵ䝬G 䓽ᴴG ᶴ䋔⪰G 㥉㵝㐐䇘ὤG 㠸䚐G ⊬⥙㡸G ⵤᴴ䚌⮨㉐SG ⯜☔G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 㨰㷨☘㢨G 㢨⤠䚐G Ḱ㥉㜄G 㤵ἭG 㵬㜠䚌⓸⦑G ⓹⥘䚐␘UG

TG [G T

- 44 -

G G G PG 㙸䆠⢰䚽┍᷸䟁ḰG Ḵ⥜䚨㉐SG 㟤⫠⏈G Ạ㋁㉥G 㠄㦤⪰G 㨸㢨⏈G ⊬⥙㡸G ᴴ㋁䞈䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G YWXY≸㜄G 㢨⤠䚐G ⽸Ạ㋁㉥G ␠㉥G ᷸䟁㡸G 㥄ᶴ䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG ⽸Ạ㋁㉥㡴G 㣠䞈㢌G ᴴ㾌⪰G ⋆㢰G ㄄⬀G 㙸⏼⢰G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ㢌G Ḕ㟝ḰG ㋀☑㵱㻐㡸G 㥐Ḕ㐐䇠G ㍌G 㢼␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G ⽸Ạ㋁㉥G 㠄㦤G ⸨Ḕ㢌G 㫼SG 㫴㋁㉥ḰG 䍠⮹㉥㡸G ᵐ㉔䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG G X`UG ㍌㠄ạG 㐐㏘䊐G ㇠㟝ḰG ᵉ䞈⏈G 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G 㥐⓸⪰G Ạ㻉䚌⥘⏈G 㟤⫠G ⊬⥙㢌G 㩅㟈䚐G ⺴⺸㡰⦐G ⇜㙸㢼␘UG 㢨⪰G 㠸䚨SG 䑀⫠㉔㛬ḰG 㙸䆠⢰䚽┍᷸䟁㡸G ⵈ䈉㡰⦐G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG

G G G PG ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 㥐ḩạḰG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ㢌G 㫴ⵤẠ㦤㝴G 䝅⥙䚌ḔG 㦨㩅䚌⮨㉐SG ḩ㤵G ⺸㚰㜄G 㫴㠄╌⏈G ᵐⵐ 䝅⥙㢌G ὤ⸬G 㥅ἰⵝ㐑O G P㡰⦐G ㍌㠄ạG 㐐㏘䊐㡸G 䞐㟝䚐␘U

G G G PG ㇵ䝬G 䚝㢌䚐G 㫸␜G ⓸Ạ⪰G 䞐㟝䚨G ㍌㠄ạG 㐐㏘䊐㡸G 䓽ᴴ䚌ḔSG ἬG 䓽ᴴG ᷤḰ⪰G ⵈ䈉㡰⦐G ᵐⵐ 䝅⥙G 㥐ḩ㣄⏈G ㍌㠄ạG 㐐㏘䊐G 䞐㟝G ⷈ㠸⪰G ᷤ㥉䚐␘UG ㍌㠄ạG 㐐㏘䊐G 㤸⮨G 䞐㟝㢨G ᴴ⏙䚌㫴G 㙾㡸G ᷱ㟤SG ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 㥐ḩ㣄⏈G ἬG 㢨㡔⪰G ㉘⮹䚌ḔSG ᵐ㉔ⵝ㙼㡸G ㍌㠄ạG 㥉⺴㝴G ⊰㢌䚐␘UG ㍌㠄ạG 㐐㏘䊐G 䞐㟝ḰG ᵉ䞈⏈G 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚐G ㉥Ḱ⪰G 㠸䚐G ạᴴG ᵐⵐ㜡⣽㢌G 㤸ⵌ㤵㢬G ⬙⢱㜄㉐G ␘⨜㛨㥬㚰G 䚐␘UG YWUG 㟤⫠⏈G ᵐⵐG ㉥Ḱ⪰G ␠㉥䚌⏈⒤G 㢼㛨G 㛅㉥䓽☥ḰG 㜠㉥㢌G 㜡⣽ᵉ䞈ᴴG 䙸㍌⺼ᴴᷤ䚌␘⏈G 㥄㡸G 㢬㐑䚌ḔSG ạⷸG 㟤㉔Ḱ㥐㜄G ♤⪬G ᵐⵐG 䘸⦐Ἤ⣜㡸G 䋩䚨G 㛅㉥䓽☥ḰG 㜠㉥G 㜡⣽ᵉ䞈⪰G 㠸䚐G ⊬⥙ 㡸G ᴴ㋁䞈䚨㚰G 䚐␘UG 㛅㉥G ⺼䓽☥㢌G ᵄ㋀⏈G ἬG 㣄㷨⦐㒜G ⯝㤵㢨㣄SG 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚌ḔG 䔠㟝㤵㢬G ㉥㣙㡸G ␠㉥䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G 䙸㍌㟈ᶨ㢨␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G ὤ㦨㢌G 㚱㋁㡸G 㢨䚽䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G ⊬⥙㡸G ⵤᴴ䚌⮨㉐G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG G G

G G G PG ㉥ⷸG ⒤㢨䉤㢌G ㍌㬅SG ⵤ䔠SG 㦤䞈G ⵃG 䞐㟝㡸G 㠸䚐G ⊬⥙㡸G ᴴ㋁䞈䚌ḔG 㐠䞈䚜㡰⦐㒜G 㥉㵹G ᷤ㥉㜄G 䞐㟝䚌ḔG 䍠㣄㢌G ⵝ䛙㡸G 㢨ↀ⮤SG 㢨⪰G 䋩䚨G ḩḩ㫴㻐㢨G ⇜㉥ḰG 㜠㉥G ⯜▄㜄᷀G 㤵㤼䚌᷀G ⵤ⺸╌⓸⦑G 䚐␘UG

G G G PG 㛅㉥䓽☥ḰG 㜠㉥G 㜡⣽ᵉ䞈G ⯝䖐⪰G ạ㥐㤵G ⵃG 㫴㜡㤵G ḩ㚱㡸G ⵈ䈉㡰⦐G 䚐G 㵹ⱨ㉥G 㷨᷸㜄G 䋩䚝㐐䇜␘UG

G G G PG 䓽䞈Ạ㻉G ⵃG ạᴴG 㣠ᶨG ☥㡸G 䔠䚜䚐G ᵐⵐG ⊬⥙㢌G ⯜☔G 㽕⮨㜄㉐G 㛅㉥䓽☥ḰG 㜠㉥G 㜡⣽ᵉ䞈G ⱬ㥐⪰G ␘⨠␘U YXUG 㢌䟀㝴G 㫴ⵝG 㥉⺴⏈G 㐐ⴰḰG 㥉⺴⪰G 㜤᷸䚌ḔSG ạᴴ㢌G ᵐⵐG 㢌㥐㜄G ␴䚐G ⸨䓬㤵㢨⮤G ⴰ㨰㤵㢬G 㨰㢬㢌㐑㡸G ⸨㣙䚌⏈⒤G 㢼㛨G 㩅㟈䚐G 㜡䚔㡸G 䚐␘UG 㢌䟀㝴G 㫴ⵝG 㥉⺴㢌G ὤ㜠⓸⪰G ⋆㢨ὤG 㠸䚨G 㟤⫠⏈G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG

G G G PG 㤵㤼䚐G 㣠㠄ḰG ⮹⨀䚐G 䚽┍᷸䟁㡸G 䋩䚨G 㜡⣽G ᵐⵐ㡸G 㫴㠄䚌⏈G ☥G ᵐⵐG Ḱ㥉㡸G ᵄ㐐䚌⏈G 㢌䟀㢌G 㜡䚔㡸G ᵉ䞈䚔G ㍌G 㢼⓸⦑G ὤ㦨㢌G 㚱㋁G 㢨䚽㡸G ᴴ㋁䞈䚌ḔG 㐠䞈䚐␘UG

G G G PG 㫴ⵝG 㥉⺴ᴴG ␜㍐䚐G ㉐⽸㏘G 㫴㠄㡸G ≌㛨G 㫴ⵝG ␜㠸㜄㉐G 㵬㜠㝴G 㵹ⱨ㉥㡸G ⋆㢨ḔG ἬG 㜡䚔㡸G 㻝㐘䢼G ㍌䚽䚔G ㍌G 㢼⓸⦑G 㫴㠄㡸G ᵉ䞈䚐␘UG

TG \G T

- 45 -

YYUG 㐐ⴰ㇠䟀␜㷨☘㡴G ạⴰ☘㢨G Ề⫠⪰G 㨰㣙䚔G ㍌G 㢼⓸⦑G 䚌ḔSG 㢬ỀG 㩅㐠㢌G 㥅ἰ㡸G 䞐㉥䞈䚌⮤SG ᵐⵐG 㥉㵹G ⵃG ㇼ⦐㟨G 䑀䏬∼㐡㡸G 䝉㉥䚌ḔSG ἬG 㢨䚽Ḱ㥉㡸G ᵄ⓹䚌⏈G 㩅㟈䚐G 㜡䚔㡸G 䚐␘UG 㐐ⴰ ㇠䟀␜㷨☘㡴G ❄䚐G ạᴴᴴG 㥐ḩ䚌⏈G ㉐⽸㏘㜄G ⸨㝸╌⏈G 㜵㜡㜄㉐G ㉐⽸㏘⪰G 㥐ḩ䚐␘UG 㢨㜄G ␴䚐G 㢬㐑㡸G ⵈ䈉㡰⦐G 㟤⫠⏈G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG G G

G G G PG 㟤⫠☘G ὤ㦨G ᴵ㣄㢌G 㚱㋁㡸G 㻝㐘䢼G 㢨䚽䚜㡰⦐㒜SG 䏭䢼G 㟤⫠㢌G 䚝㢌═G ạ㥐G Ề⫠㜄G ⺴䚝䚌⏈ ᵐⵐ㜄G ␴䚐G 㐐ⴰ㇠䟀␜㷨㢌G ὤ㜠⪰G 㺐␴䞈䚔G ㍌G 㢼⏈G 䞌ᷱ㡸G Ạ㻉䚌⏈⒤G 㸼㥄㡸G ⬒㻈㛨SG 㐐ⴰ ㇠䟀␜㷨☘㢨G ⓹⫱㤵㢬G ᵐⵐG 㨰㷨⦐㉐G 㜡䚔㡸G ␘G 䚔G ㍌G 㢼⓸⦑G 䚐␘UG

G G G PG 㐐ⴰ㇠䟀␜㷨☘㢨SG 㢨㏘䇸⺼G 㠄㾍ḰG 㐐ⴰ㇠䟀␜㷨G ᵐⵐ䟜Ḱ㉥㡸G 㠸䚐G ạ㥐G 䘸⤼㢸㠀䆠 Op G m G G jzvG k G l P⪰G ⵈ䈉㡰⦐SG ᵐⵐ䟜Ḱ㉥㜄G Ḵ䚐G 㐐ⴰ㇠䟀␜㷨㢌G ὤ㜠㝴G 㵹ⱨ㉥㡸G ᵉ䞈䚌⏈G Ḵ䚽㡸G 㐘㷐䚌⓸⦑G ⓹⥘䚐␘UG

䍠⮹䚌ḔSG 㵹㢸G 㢼⏈G 䝅⥙ YZUG 㟤⫠⏈ G ὤ㦨G ᴵ㣄㢌G 㚱㋁㡸 G ⵈ䈉㡰⦐ G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙ G ⵃG ὤ䇴 G ᵐⵐ㣠㠄㜄 G Ḵ䚐G 㥉 ⸨G 㥐ḩG ⵃG 㥅ἰ㉥㡸G ᵐ㉔䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㢨⤠䚐G ⯝䖐⪰G ␠㉥䚌ὤG 㠸䚨G 㟤⫠⏈G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG G

G G G PG ㇵ㛹㤵㡰⦐G ⴰᵄ䚐G 㥉⸨㜄G ␴䚐G 㥉␭䚐G 㟤⥘⪰G Ḕ⥘䚌㜠SG ḩ㤵G 㣄ἼSG ᷸㚱G 㦤ᶨSG ᵐⵐG ㉥ḰG ὤ㜠 ⓸㜄 G Ḵ 䚐 G ⯜ ☔G 㥉 ⸨⪰ G ḩᵐ 䚐␘ UG

G G G PG ㍌㠄ạG 䜸㫴㜄㉐G 䍠⮹䚐G ḩḩ㣠㥉Ḵ⫠G ⵃG 㠄㦤㥉⸨Ḵ⫠G 㐐㏘䊐㡸G Ạ㻉䚌⏈⒤G 㬅㩅䚌ḔSG ⯜☔G 㨰㷨㢌G 㜡⣽㡸G ᵉ䞈䚌㜠G 㢌㇠ᷤ㥉G Ḱ㥉㜄㉐G 㢨⤠䚐G 㥉⸨⪰G ⸨␘G 㣌G 䞐㟝䚌ḔG 㵹ⱨ㉥㡸G ⋆㢨⓸⦑G 䚐␘UG G G G PG ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㡸G 䋩䚨G 㥐ḩ╌⏈G 㣠㠄☘㜄G ␴䚐G 㐐㢌㤵㤼䚌ḔG 䔠Ḹ㤵㢨⮤G ⴬⣌G 㫴䛙㤵㢬G 㥉⸨㜄G ␴䚐G 㤸㣄G ḩᵐ⪰G 㠸䚨G ḩ䋩㢌G ḩᵐ═G 䖐㨴㡸G ⫼⥜䚐␘UG ┍G 䖐㨴㡴G vljkTkhjG 䋩᷸G ⸨ḔG ⵃG ạ㥐G 㠄㦤G 䍠⮹㉥G 㢨⏼㊈䐤⽀Op G h G { G p P㝴G ␘⪬G ⸨㝸㤵㢬G ⸨ḔG 㷨᷸⪰G Ḕ⥘䚌㜠G 㻈㫸䚐␘UG ┍G 䖐㨴㡴G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạG ⵃG 㨰㟈G ⽸ạᴴG 㨰㷨☘㢌G 㥉⸨ 㜄G ␴䚐G 䙸㟈⪰G 㻝㦥㐐䁐㚰G 䚐␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G YWXY≸G XY㠈ᾀ㫴G ┍G 䖐㨴㜄G 䚝㢌䚌ḔSG ᴵ㣄G ┍G 䖐㨴㢌G 㐐䚽G 㢰㥉㡸G ḩᵐ䚌ḔSG YWX\≸G XY㠈ᾀ㫴G 㤸⮨G 㢨䚽㡸G ⯝䖐⦐G 㻈㫸䚐␘U GGGGGG Y[UG 㟤⫠⏈G ⸨␘G 㜼㽕ᴴ⏙䚐G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㡸G 㠸䚨G 䝅⥙䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㢨⪰G 㠸䚨G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨␘U G G G G PG 㙸䆠⢰䚽┍᷸䟁ㇵ㢌G 㣠㠄㢌G 㩅㣙ὤG 㜼㽕㉥G ᵐ㉔ḰG Ḵ⥜䚌㜠G 㚱㋁㡸G 䚼⒌G ␭㇠㣄☘㡴G ┍G ⺸㚰㜄㉐G ᴵ㣄㢌G 㚱㋁㡸G 㻝㐘䢼G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨⮤SG 䙸㟈䚐G ᷱ㟤G ᵐ䜵㡸G 㻈㫸䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㢨☘㡴G YWXZ≸ᾀ㫴G ㍌㠄ạ㜄᷀G 㥉ὤ㤵㢨⮤SG 㐐㢌㤵㤼䚐G ZT\≸G 㜤┍G 㜼㇤㙼G ⵃV❄⏈G 㙸䆠⢰㜄㉐G 䚝㢌 ═G ㇠䚡㢌G 㢨䚽G ᷸䟁㡸G 㥐ḩ䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㜠䇴G ᵐⵐ㨰㷨☘㡴G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘㜄᷀G 䛙䟸㢌G 㩅ὤG 䝅⥙ ḰG Ḵ⥜䚌㜠G 㐐㢌㤵㤼䚐G ⵝ㐑㡰⦐G 㣄㐔☘㢌G 㢌⓸㜄G Ḵ䚐G 㥉⸨⪰G 㥐ḩ䚌ὤG 㠸䚨G ⊬⥙䚔G ᶷ 㢨␘UG G Y\UG 㟤⫠⏈G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 㨰㷨☘㢌G ␘㛅㉥㡸G 䞌㜵䚐␘UG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘㡴G 䜸㣙㜄㉐G 㢨⤠䚐G ␘㛅㉥㡸G

TG ]G T

- 46 -

Ḵ⫠䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G 䝅㢌㝴G 㦤㥉㡸G 㨰⓸䚌ḔSG ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 㥐ḩ㣄☘㡴G ⺸㤼䞈⪰G 㨸㢨ḔG 㠄㦤G 㵸≄㢌G 䞉㇤㡸G ⵝ㫴䚔G 㵹㢸㢨G 㢼␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G ⺸㤼䞈⪰G 㨸㢨ὤG 㠸䚐G ⊬⥙㡰⦐G 㢬䚨G 䏭㥉G ạᴴ㜄G ␴䚐G ᵐⵐ㫴㠄G 㣠㠄㢨G ᵄ㋀䚌㫴G 㙾⓸⦑G 䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG ┍G ⯝䖐G ␠㉥㡸G 㠸䚨G 㟤⫠⏈G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ 㢨␘UG G G

G G G PG 㟤⫠⏈G YWXZ≸ᾀ㫴G ⺸㛹SG 䘸⦐Ἤ⣜G 㩅㐠㢌G 㥅ἰSG ḩ┍G 䘸⦐Ἤ⣜G ⵃG 㠸㢸䝅⥙O G PG ☥G ㍌㠄ạG 㨰⓸㢌G 㦤㥉G 㥐⓸⪰G ⸨␘G 㤵Ἥ㤵㡰⦐G 䞐㟝䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG

G G G PG 㟤⫠⏈G ␘㣄ὤẠSG ἴ⦐ⷀG 䒴☐G ⵃG 䘸⦐Ἤ⣜㜄G ␴䚐G 㥉㵹㤵G 㢰Ḵ㉥㡸G 㥐Ḕ䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G ㉥ḰᴴG ⋆㡴G ὤ㦨㢌G ␘㣄䝅⥙G 㵸≄㡸G 䟜Ḱ㤵㡰⦐G 䞐㟝䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G YWXY≸G ⬄ᾀ㫴G ḩ┍ 㢌G ⊬⥙㡸G 㠸䚐G 㠄㾍ḰG ᴴ㢨☐⢰㢬㜄G 䚝㢌䚜㡰⦐㒜G 㢨⤠䚐G ␘㣄䝅⥙G 㵸≄㢌G 䞉㇤㡸G 㦤㤼䚌ὤG 㠸䚨G ⊬⥙䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG ␘㣄ὤẠSG ἴ⦐ⷀG 䒴☐G ⵃG 䘸⦐Ἤ⣜㡴G 㠄㦤䟜Ḱ㉥㜄G ␴䚐G ᴵ㣄㢌G 㚱㋁㡸G 㫴㋁㤵㡰⦐G 㢨䚽䚌⮨㉐SG ㍌㠄ạḰG 㫴㜡G ⵃG ạ㥐㤵G 㵜㠄㜄㉐G 㦤㥉ḰG ㇵ䝬G 㵹ⱨ㉥G 㷨㥐㜄G ␴䚐G 㵬㜠⪰G ᵉ䞈䚨G ⇌ᴼG ᶷ㢨␘UG G G G G PG 㟤⫠⏈G ⺼㻝⺸䚐G 㫴㠄㡸G ⵏ⏈G ạᴴ☘㢌G ⱬ㥐⪰G 䚨ᷤ䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G ⊬⥙㡸G ᴴ㋁䞈䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㢨 ⪰G 㠸䚨G YWXY≸G ⬄ᾀ㫴G ┍G ⱬ㥐㢌G 䚨ᷤ㡸G 㠸䚐G 㟤⫠㢌G 䚽┍G ⵝ䛙㡸G ㉘㥉䚔G ㍌G 㢼⏈G 㠄㾍☘ 㜄G 䚝㢌䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㜠ὤ㜄⏈G ⯜☔G ᵐⵐ㣠㠄㢨G 䔠䚜╔G ᶷ㢨␘UG G G G PG ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 㥐ḩ㣄☘㡴G 䜸㣙G 㫵㠄☘㜄᷀G ⺼㻝⺸䚐G Ề䚐㢨G 㠸㢸╌⏈G ⱬ㥐⪰G 䚨ᷤ䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G ⊬⥙ 㡸G 㐠䞈䚌ḔG ᴴ㋁䞈䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 㥐ḩ㣄☘㡴G ᵐⵐG 䘸⦐Ἤ⣜㢌G ὤ䟁ḰG 㢨䚽㜄㉐G 㣠㥉G Ề䚐SG 㫵㠄G 㵸㟝SG 㜡䚔G ⵃG 㵹㢸㢌G 㠸㢸㡸G 䔠䚜䚐G 㟨㜵㢌G ⯜☔G 㽕⮨㡸G ᶴ䋔䚌ḔSG ⇜㙸G 㢼⏈G 㣙㚔⪰G 䚨ᷤ䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G 㦤㾌⪰G 㐐䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG

⺸㣵G ⵃG 㼜㚱䚐G ㇵ䞝㜄㉐G 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚐G ᵐⵐ㢌G 㫑㫸G Y]UG 㼜㚱ạ☘㡴G ␴㷨⦐G ㇼ㷐≸ᵐⵐ⯝䖐㢌G ␠㉥㜄㉐G ⷋ㛨⇌G 㢼␘UG ㇼ㷐≸ᵐⵐ⯝䖐㢌G ␠㉥㡴G 㼜㚱ạ ☘㢨G 㫵⮨䚌ḔG 㢼⏈G Ḕ㡔䚐G ⱬ㥐☘㡸G 㢨䚨䚌ḔSG Ἤ⤠䚐G ⱬ㥐☘㡸G Ἥ⸩䚌ḔG 㫴㋁㤵㢬G ᵐⵐ㡸G 㠸䚐G ὤⵌ㡸G ␘㫴⏈G 㟤⫠G ḩ┍㢌G 㜡⣽㜄G ␠⥘G 㢼␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G 㼜㚱ḰG ⺸㣵ạᴴ⦐G Ạ㉥═G n^R ạᴴᴴG 㵬㜠䚐G 䓽䞈Ạ㻉G ⵃG ạᴴ㣠ᶨ㜄G Ḵ䚐G ạ㥐␴䞈Op G k G G w G G z P㜄㉐G Ạ㻉═G ⎨♐Ou G k P㡸G 䞌㜵䚐␘UG ⎨♐㡸G ㏭㢬䚐G 㨰㷨☘㡴G 㢨⪰G 㢨䚽䚌ὤG 㠸䚨G ⊬⥙䚔G ᶷ㢨⮤SG 㢨G Ḱ㥉㜄㉐G 㟤⫠⏈G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG G

G G G PG 䓽䞈Ạ㻉G ⵃG ạᴴ㣠ᶨG ⯝䖐Ow G G z G n PG TG 㤵ⷉ䚐G 㥉㾌SG 㾌㙼SG 㥉㢌SG ᷱ㥐㤵G ὤⵌSG ㉬㢹ḰG ḩ㥉䚐G ㉐⽸㏘㜄G 㟤㉔㍐㠸G ⺴㜠G TG ⪰G 㼜㚱ạᴴG ⵃG ⺸㣵ạᴴ㜄㉐G ㇼ㷐≸ᵐⵐ⯝䖐G ␠㉥㡸G ᴴ⏙䚌᷀G 䚌⏈G 㩅㟈䚐G ἰᶤ⦐G 䞐㟝䚐␘UG

G G G PG 㼜㚱ạᴴ㜄㉐G ㍌㠄ạ㢨G 㨰㢬㢌㐑㡸G ᵊḔG 㨰⓸䚌⏈G ㇼ⦐㟨G 䝅⥙ⵝ㐑㜄G 㩅㥄㡸G █␘U GGG G G G PG ⸨␘G ⇌㡴G ㉥Ḱ⪰G 㠸䚨G 䍠⮹㉥G ᵐ㉔SG ㍌㠄ạG 㐐㏘䊐G 䞐㟝㜄G ♤⪬G 㠸䜌Ḵ⫠SG ạᴴG 㜡⣽ⵤ㛅SG 㠄㦤㢌G 㐐㢌G 㤵㤼㉥ḰG 㜼㽕㉥G 㥐ḔG 㚱㋁㜄G ␴䚐G 㐔⧤⪰G Ạ㻉䚐␘U

TG ^G T

- 47 -

㜡ᷱ㜄G 㷌䚐G ㇵ䞝㜄㉐G 㼜㚱㉥㡸G 㨸㢨ḔG ⸩㠄⥙㡸G ᵉ䞈䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G 䑀䏬∼㐡G Y^UG 㟤⫠⏈G 䏭䢼G ㋀ἐ⯜㢌G 㤴ᵐⵐG ⓸㉐ạ㷌⤰G Ἥ⓸⦐G 㼜㚱䚐G ㇵ䞝㜄㉐SG ᵐⵐG 㤸⣩ḰG 䘸⦐Ἤ⣜㢨G 㻝ᷝO P㡰⦐G 㢬䚨G 㠸ὤ㜄G 㷌䚐G ㇠⣀☘ḰG ㇠䟀㢌G ⸩㠄⥙㡸G Ạ㻉䚌⏈G 㢰㡸G 㟤㉔Ḱ㥐⦐G ㇰ ⓸⦑G 䚨㚰G 䚐␘UG ⸩㠄⥙ḰG 㠸ὤG ᵄ㋀㜄G ␴䚐G 䍠㣄⏈G ᵐⵐG ⊬⥙㢌G ᴴ㾌㝴G 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙㉥㡸G ⋆㢬 ␘UG 㢨⪰G 㠸䚨G 㟤⫠⏈G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG

G G G PG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘㡴G 㻝ᷝ㜄G ␴䚐G ⸩㠄⥙ḰG 㣠⇐Ḵ⫠G 㦤㾌⪰G ㍌㠄ạ㢌G 㥉㵹ḰG 㤸⣩㜄G 㨰⓸㤵㡰 ⦐G 䋩䚝䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG

G G G PG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘㢨G ⮹㐐䚐G 䙸㟈㜄G ♤⢰G 㟤⫠⏈G 㻝ᷝⵝ㫴G 㢬䘸⢰㝴G 㠸䜌㜄G ⊬㻐═G ḩ┍㷨⪰G 㠸䚐G ㇠䟀⸨䝬㐐㏘䊐㜄G 䍠㣄䚌ὤG 㠸䚨G 䝅⥙䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG ❄䚐SG 㟤⫠⏈G ㍌㠄ạG 䜸㫴G ⵃG 㫴㜡G 㵜㠄㜄㉐G 㣠⇐Ḵ⫠⪰G 㠸䚐G 㣄㠄SG ᷸䟁SG ὤ㍔G 㥐ḩ㡸G 㫑ᴴ㐐䇠G ᶷ㢨␘U

䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G 㠄㦤㜄㉐G 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G ᵐⵐ㡸G 㠸䚐G 䝅⥙㡰⦐G Y_UG 㠄㦤⏈G ᵐⵐⱬ㥐G 䚨ᷤⵝ㙼㢌G 㢰⺴⺸㢰G ㄄㢨␘UG 㫴Ἴ㡴G 㟤⫠㢌G 㸼㥄ḰG Ḵ㐠㡸G 㠄㦤䟜Ḱ㉥㜄㉐G 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G ᵐⵐ㢌G ⱬ㥐⦐G 䞉␴䚔G 㐐㥄㢨␘UG 㜠ὤ㜄⏈G ᵐⵐ㡸G 㠸䚐G 䘸⤼㢸㠀䆠ᴴG 㟈Ạ═␘UG ┍G 䘸⤼㢸㠀䆠G 㙼㜄⏈G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㢨G 䔠䚜╌㛨㚰G 䚐␘UG

G G G PG ᵉ⥙䚌ḔG 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚌⮤G 䔠㟝㤵㢬G ㉥㣙㢨G ᵐⵐ㡸G ᷠ㢬䚐␘UG G G G PG 㣄ạ㢌G ᵐⵐ㜄G 䙸㟈䚐G 㣠㠄㡸G ┍㠄䚌⏈⒤G 㢼㛨G 㥉⺴㢌G 㣄㷨G 㣠㠄㢨G ⸨␘G ⬂㡴G 㜡䚔㡸G ␨␭ 䚐␘UG 㢨⦐㒜G 㥉⺴ᴴG ␠㉥䚐G ᵐⵐG ㉥Ḱ㜄G ␴䚨G ạⴰ☘㜄᷀G 㵹㢸㡸G 㫼G ㍌G 㢼᷀G ═␘UG G G G G G PG 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G ạᴴG ⵃG ⽸ạᴴG ὤḴ☘㡴G 㣄㷨㤵㢬G ᵐ䜵㡸G ㉘᷸G ⵃG 㐘䚽䚌ḔG ㇵ䝬G 㵹ⱨ㉥㡸G ᵊ⏈␘UG G G G PG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘㡴G 㫴㜡㤵G ⵃG 㫴Ạ㤵㡰⦐G 㥄㵜G 䋩䚝╌⮨㉐G ㉬᷸ᷱ㥐㜄㉐G ⸨␘G ⇌㡴G ᷱ㣵㟤㠸⪰G 䞉⸨䚔G ㍌G 㢼⏈G ἐ⯜㢌G ᷱ㥐⪰G 㵱㻐䚐␘UG 㢨⪰G 㠸䚨SG 㟤⫠⏈G 䚝㢌═G ạ㥐㤵G Ề⫠㝴G ἐⷈ㜄G ♤⢰G 㠄㦤ᴴG ㇠㟝╌⏈G ⵝⷉḰG ␴ㇵ㡸G 㣠ᶴ䋔䚜㡰⦐㒜G 㠄㦤ᴴG ᵐⵐ㢌G 㸽⬘G 㜡䚔㡸G 䚌⓸⦑G 䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG Y`UG 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G 㥐⓸G ⵃG 㥉㵹㡴G 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚐G ⵐ㤸㡸G 㠸䚨G 㩅㟈䚌␘UG 䙸㟈䚔G ᷱ㟤G 䚩㐠㤵㢬G ạᴴG ὤ⏙㡸G 㢨䚽䚌⏈G 㥐⓸⏈G ᵉ䞈䚨㚰G 䚌⮤SG 㢨㝴G 䚜‌G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 㥐ḩ㣄☘㢌G 㥉㵹ḰG Ḵ䚽㢨G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ㜄G 㢌䚨G 㣠㠄㡸G 䞐㟝䚔G ㍌G 㢼⓸⦑G 䚨㚰G 䚐␘UG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ㡴G 㢨⤠䚐G 㥐⓸⪰G 䜸㫴G ㇵ䞝ḰG ㉐⦐G ␘⪬G ⵐ㤸G ␜᷸㜄G ⬒᷀G ᵉ䞈䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㢨⪰G 㠸䚨SG 㟤⫠⏈G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG

G G G PG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạG 㨰⓸⦐G 㥐⓸G ⵃG 㥉㵹G ⷴ䞈ᴴG 㢨⨜㛨㫴⓸⦑G 㫴㠄䚌ḔSG 㢨⪰G 䋩䚨G 㥉⺴SG 㫴ⵝG 㥐⓸SG 㫴㜡ὤẠSG 㢌䟀SG 㐐ⴰ㇠䟀⪰G 䔠䚜䚐G 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G 㣠㠄㡸G ┍㠄䚌ḔG ㉐⽸㏘⪰G 㥐ḩ䚌⓸⦑G 䚐␘U

G G G PG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạG 㨰⓸⦐G ạⷸG 㥐⓸SG 㐐㏘䊐SG 㜡⣽G ᵐⵐ㡸G 䓽ᴴ䚐␘UG

TG _G T

- 48 -

G G G PG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạG 㨰⓸⦐G 㥐⓸G ㉥Ḱ㜄G ␴䚐G ᵐ㉔═G ἰᶤG ᵐⵐ㡸G 㫴㠄䚌㜠G 㥉㵹G 㢹㙼SG 㢨䚽G ⵃG 㵹㢸㡸G ᵊ᷀G 䚐␘UG G G G PG 㫴㜡G ⵃG ἴ⦐ⷀG 㵜㠄㜄㉐G ㇵ䝬G 㫴㐑ḰG ᷱ䜌㡸G ḩ㡔䚌㜠G 㥐⓸ᵐ䜵㢌G ㉥ḩ㟈㢬㢌G ㏩☑㡸G 㐠䞈䚐␘UG G

㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚐G ᵐⵐ㡸G 㠸䚐G ⇜⇜G ⵃG ㇰᴵ䝅⥙G ZWUG 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚐G ᵐⵐ㜄G ␴䚐G ⊰㢌⏈G 㣠㥉㤵G 䝅⥙㡸G 䠜㙠G ≌㛨㉐㉐G ⯜☔G ᵐⵐ㨰㷨G ⵃG ạᴴ㢌G 㫴㐑 ḰG ᵐⵐG ᷱ䜌㡰⦐ᾀ㫴G 䞉㣙═␘UG 䏭䢼G ⇜⇜G ⵃG ㇰᴵ䝅⥙㡴G ᴵạ㢌G ㇵ䞝㜄G 㤵䚝䚌ḔG 䟜Ḱ㤵㢨⮤G 㫴㜡㤵㢬G 㨰㢬㢌㐑㡸G ᵊ⏈G 䚨ᷤ㵹㡸G 㐘䜸䚜㡰⦐㒜G ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘㢌G ㉐⽸㏘G 㤸␠G 㥉㵹ḰG 㥅ἰⷉ 㡸G ⵈ⃴G ㍌G 㢼⏈G 㣔㣠⥙㢨G 㢼␘UG G G ZXUG 㟤⫠⏈G ⇜⇜䝅⥙㜄G 㵬㜠䚌⏈G ⬂㡴G ạᴴ☘㢨G ␘㛅䚐G 㣠㠄ḰG 㤸ⱬ㉥㡸G ┍㐐㜄G 㨰ḔG ⵏ⏈G 㥄㡸G 㢬㐑䚌⮤SG 㢨ᶷ㢨G 䝅⥙㡸G 㫑㫸䚌╌G 䚨␭ạ㢨G ␘⪬G 㣠㠄㡸G 㫴㠄ⵏ㡸G ᴴ⏙㉥㡸G 㤴䚨䚌㫴G 㙾㙸㚰G 䚐 ␘ḔG ⴳ⏈␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 䋩䚨G 㫴㐑ḰG ㇵ䝬G 䚍㏩㡸G ᵉ䞈䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG

G G G PG 㤵㤼䚐G ᷱ㟤SG ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㜄G ␴䚐G ㇰᴵ㥅ἰ㢌G ㇠㟝㡸G 㫑㫸䚐␘U G G G PG ⇜⇜G ⵃG ㇰᴵ䝅⥙G 㥅ἰⷉ㢨G 㫴Ἴᾀ㫴G ᶤ█G ㉥ḩ㡸G 㢬㥉䚌ḔG 㢨⪰G ⸨␘G 㤵ἭG 䞐㟝䚐␘UG G G G G PG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘㢨G 㻉㤵䚐G 㩅㟈䚐G 㫴㐑㢌G ⸨ḔO G P㜄G ␴䚐G 㥅ἰ㉥㡸G 㫑㫸䚌⏈G ㍌ ␜ 㡰⦐㒜 G ⇜⇜ 䝅⥙G 㨰㷨☘G ᴸ㢌G 㫴㐑G Ẅ䞌SG ㇵ䝬G 䚍㏩G ⵃG 䝅 ⥙G ≘䏬㠀䆠㢌 G ᵐⵐ 㡸G ⓹ ⥘䚐␘UG G GGG G G G PG ⇜⇜ Vㇰᴵ䝅⥙㜄 G 䟜 Ḱ㤵㡰⦐G 㵬㜠䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G 㫴ⵝSG ạᴴ G 㜡⣽ ᵉ䞈⪰G 㫴㠄䚐 ␘UG

ⴰᴸ⺴ⱬḰG ᵐⵐG ZYUG 㟤⫠⏈G 䜵㐔SG ⺴SG ㋀☑SG 㢰㣄⫠G 㵱㻐SG ạ⇨G 㣄㠄㢌G 䞐㟝㜄G 㢼㛨G ⴰᴸ⺴ⱬ㢨G 䚩㐠㤵㢬G 㜡䚔㡸G 䚐␘⏈G ㇠㐘㡸G 㢬㥉䚐␘UG ┍G ⯝䖐⪰G 㠸䚨㉐G 㟤⫠⏈G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG

G G G PG 㣠᷸㢌G ␴䖐㤵㢬G 㦤㫵☘SG ⊬㦤G ⵃG 㜠䇴G Ḵ⥜G 㨰㷨㝴G 䝅⥙䚌㜠G ⴰᴸ䍠㣄G ᵐⵐ㡸G 㠸䚐G ⷉ㤵SG ἐ㥐SG 䚽㥉G 䞌ᷱ㡸G ᵐ㉔䚌ḔSG 㞬ạ㢬㫵㥅䍠㣄G ⵃG ⴰḴG 䑀䏬∼㐡㢌G 㫑␴SG 䓽☥䚐G ⵝ㐑SG 䏭䢼SG ạᴴG ⵃG 㫴㜡㤵G 㵜㠄㡸G Ḕ⥘䚐G ᴴ㾌G ㇠㏠O G PG ᵉ䞈SG ᵐⵐG ⯝䖐G 㫴㠄G ⊬⥙㢌G ᵉ䞈 ⪰G 㠸䚐G ᶨ㤸䚐G 㥉㵹ḰG ἐ㥐G 䞌ᷱ㡸G Ạ㻉䚐␘UG

G G G PG 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚐G ㉥㣙㡸G 㸽㫸䚌⏈G ᵐⵐG 㥉㵹G ⵃG 㤸⣩㡸G ὤ䟁䚌ḔG Ạ䜸䚌⏈G Ḱ㥉㜄G ⴰᴸ⺴ⱬ㢌G 㵬㜠⪰G ᴴ⏙䚌᷀G 䚐␘UG G G G PG ḩ┍㢌G ᵐⵐG ⯝䖐⪰G ␠㉥䚌⏈⒤G ⴰᴸG 㣠㠄㡸G ┍㠄䚔G ㍌G 㢼⏈G 䜵㐔㤵㢬G Ἴ㡩㷨᷸⪰G ⒈㟥G ⵐ㤸㐐䇜␘UG

TG `G T

- 49 -

G G G PG ㉥Ḱ㝴G 㜵䛙㜄G 㩅㥄㡸G █G 㫴㋁ᴴ⏙䚐G ᵐⵐ㢌G ┍⥙㡰⦐㒜G Iⱨ㜡㡸G 㠸䚐G 㠄㦤I⪰G 㫑㫸䚌㜠SG 㐐㣙㢌G 㐘䑜㜄G ␴㷌䚌ḔSG 㣄⸬㐐㣙㜄G ␴䚐G 㥅ἰ㉥㡸G ᵉ䞈䚌⮤SG ⴰᴸ⺴ⱬG 㨰㷨☘㢨G 㫵⮨䚐G 㠸ὤ⪰G 㝸䞈㐐䇠G ㍌G 㢼⏈G 㥅ἰⷉ㡸G 㫑㫸䚐␘UG G G G PG ⴰḴ⺴ⱬG ⵃG Ḵ⥜G ␜㷨㢌G ␴䖐☘㢨G ᵐⵐḰG ㇠㛹G ㉥Ḱ⪰G ┍㐐㜄G 㫑㫸䚌⏈G ⵝⷉ㡸G 㤵Ἥ㤵㡰⦐G ⯜ㇽ䚜㡰⦐㒜G ㉐⦐㜄᷀G ⓸㟴㢨G ╌⓸⦑G 䚐␘UG

⺴䑜㝴G ⺼ⷉ㤵G 䢄⪸㢌G 㷍ᷤG G G G G ZZUG ⺴䑜⏈G ἴ⦐ⷀG ᵐⵐ㡸G 㐠ᴵ䚌᷀G 㤴䚨䚌ḔSG ᵐⵐG 㣠㠄㡰⦐G 㢨㟝╔G ㍌G 㢼⏈G 㣄㠄㡸G ⺸㇤㐐䇘 ⮤SG ᶤⶸ≀㏘G ὤḴ㢌G 㫼㡸G 㤴䚨䚌ḔSG 㢬ᴸG 㙼⸨⪰G 㠸䝅䚌⏈G ⸅䔄㢨␘UG ⺴䑜⏈G ⷈ㧸⪰G 㛅㇤䚌 ⮤G ⺸㣵ḰG 㼜㚱㉥㡰⦐G 㢨㛨㫴⏈G ᷱ㟤ᴴG ⬂␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G 㡔㜈G ⵌ⺴䑜䝅㚱O|uG j G h G j PG ⵃG vljkG ⌀Ɒⵝ㫴䝅㚱Oh Ti G j PḰG ᵍ㡴G 䝅㚱☘㡸G ⵈ䈉㡰⦐G ⺴䑜㝴G ⺼ⷉ㤵G 䢄⪸㡸G 㷍ᷤ䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G ḩ┍㢌G ⊬⥙㡸G ᵉ䞈䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG ┍G ⯝䖐⪰G ␠㉥䚌ὤG 㠸䚨G 㟤⫠⏈G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨␘U

G G G PG ⺴䑜G 㷍ᷤ㜄G ␴䚐G ᴵ㣄㢌G 㚱㋁㡸G 㻝㐘䢼G 㢨䚽䚌ḔSG ⯜☔G ⺴䑜G Ḵ䚽㜄G ␴䚨G ⱨḴ㟝G ⱬ䞈㝴G ⷉ⪔㡸G ᵉ䞈䚐␘UG 㜠ὤ㜄⏈G 㣠㥉G 䍠⮹㉥G ᵉ䞈SG ⓹⫱㤵㢬G ᵄ⓹ὤẠ㢌G ᵉ䞈SG ⇨⺴G Ḕⵐ㣄㜄G ␴䚐G ⸨䝬G 䞉␴G ☥㢌G ⊬⥙㢨G 䔠䚜═␘UG

G G G PG ⓼㉬䇵G ⵝ㫴G 㦤㾌⪰G ᵉ䞈䚌ḔSG 䇼㉬G Ḵ䚽㜄G ␴㷌䚌ḔSG ⺼ⷉG 㣄㇤㢌G 㻈㤵SG ┍ᷤG ⵃG 䟀㍌⪰G 㠸䚐G ạᴴG ⵃG ạ㥐G 㥉㵹SG ⷉ㷨᷸G ⵃG 㥐⓸㤵G 㣙㾌⪰G ᵉ䞈䚜㡰⦐㒜G ⺼ⷉG 㣄Ἴ㢌G 䢄⪸㡸G 㷍ᷤ 䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G ᵐⷸG ⊬⥙㡸G ᴴ㋁䞈䚐␘UG 㜠ὤ㜄⏈G 䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G ạ㥐䝅⥙㡸G 㸽㫸䚌⏈G ⷉG 㥐㥉ḰG Ḵ䚽G 㢨䚽㢨G 䔠䚜═␘UG

ὤ䟸ⷴ䞈G 㣠㠄 Z[UG 㩅ὤ㤵㢬G 㽕⮨㜄㉐G ⸰G ⚀G ὤ䟸ⷴ䞈G 㣠㠄㢨G 䆠᷀G 㫑ᴴ䚔G ᶷ㡰⦐G 㜼ㇵ═␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G ┍G 㣠㠄㢨G ㇼ⦐㟨G ὤ䟀㝴G ⓸㤸㡸G ᴴ㥬㝠G ᶷ㢸㡸G 㢬㫴䚌ḔSG ὤ䟸ⷴ䞈G 㣠㠄ḰG ⸨␘G 䔠Ḹ㤵㢬G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㡸G 㠸䚐G 㟤⫠㢌G 㥅ἰⷉG 㤸ⵌ㜄㉐G 㢰Ḵ㉥ḰG 䍠⮹㉥SG 㜼㽕ᴴ⏙㉥㡸G 㫑㫸䚌ὤG 㠸䚨G ⊬⥙䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㜠ὤ㜄⏈G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 䔠䚜䚐␘UG G G

G G G PG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ☘㢌G 㤸ⵌ㤵㢬G ạᴴG ᵐⵐ᷸䟁㢌G 䙸㍌㤵㢬G ⺴⺸㡰⦐㒜G ạᴴ㢌G ὤ䟸ⷴ䞈G 㥉㵹ḰG ᷸䟁㡸G 㫴㋁㤵㡰⦐G 㫴㠄䚌ḔSG 㤵㤼䚐G ᷱ㟤SG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ㢌G 㐐㏘䊐㡸G 䋩䚨G 㢨⤠䚐G 㦤㾌☘㢨G 䍠⮹䚐G ⵝ㐑㡰⦐G 㣠㠄㡸G 䞉⸨䚌ḔSG 㤸␠╌ḔSG 㥄ᶴ╌⓸⦑G 䚐␘UG

G G G PG ὤ䟸ⷴ䞈G 䞐┍㜄G 㵬㜠䚌⏈G 㨰㷨☘ḰG 䚜‌G ᵐⵐ䟜Ḱ㉥㜄㉐G 㛯㡴G Ẅ䟼㡸G 㫴㋁㤵㡰⦐G ḩ㡔䚌ḔSG ὤ䟸ⷴ䞈G 㣠㠄㢌G 㤸␠G Ḱ㥉㜄㉐G 㛯㡴G 䜵㐔㢨G ⸨␘G 䔠Ḹ㤵㢬G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㜄G ὤ㜠䚌⓸⦑G 䚐␘UG G G G 㚒㡰⦐G ⇌㙸ᴼG ὬG aG ㇼ㷐≸ᵐⵐ⯝䖐⪰G 䛙䚐SG Ἤ⫠ḔG 㢨⪰G ≌㛨㉔G 㫸⸨⪰G 㠸䚐G 䑀䏬∼㐡 Z\UG 㟤⫠⏈G 㠄㦤䟜Ḱ㉥㜄G Ḵ䚐G 䑀⫠㉔㛬G ⵃG 㙸䆠⢰G 䚽┍᷸䟁㜄G ⮹㐐═G 㚱㋁㜄G ⒈䚌㜠SG ⺴㇤㹑䟀㜄㉐G 䚝㢌═G 㚱㋁ḰG 䚽┍᷸䟁㢨G ㉥Ḱ⪰G ᶤ▌G ㍌G 㢼⓸⦑G ㇵ䝬G 㵹㢸㡸G 㫼G ᶷ㢨␘UG ┍G ⯝䖐⪰G ␠㉥䚌ὤG

TG XWG T

- 50 -

㠸䚨G 㟤⫠⏈G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG

G G G PG ᵐⷸG ᵐⵐ⓸ㇵạ㜄㉐SG 䝅⥙㢌G 䟜Ḱ㉥ḰG ᵐⵐG 䘸⦐㉬㏘⪰G ᵐ㉔䚌ὤG 㠸䚐G 㟤⫠G ⊬⥙㢌G 㫸㤸ㇵ䞝㡸G 㥄ᶴ䚌ḔG ㇵ䝬G 㵹ⱨ㉥㡸G 㫑㫸䚌⏈G ạⷸG ᵐⵐG ㍌㟈㝴G 㟤㉔Ḱ㥐㜄G ὤⵌ㡸G █G 䘸⤼㢸㠀䆠㜄G 䚝㢌䚐␘UG 㟤⫠ᴴG 䚝㢌䚐G 㢨⤠䚐G 䘸⤼㢸㠀䆠㝴G 㫴䖐G ⵃG ⯝䖐☘㡴G ᵐⷸG ạᴴ㢌G Ạ㷨㤵㢬G ㇵ䞝ḰG ㍌㟈㜄G ⬒㻐G ᶷ㢨⮤SG ᴵạ㢌G 㠄㦤G ⵃG ᵐⵐG 㥉㵹㡸G ⵈ䈉㡰⦐G 䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG ❄䚐G 㢨⤠䚐G 䞐┍G ᷤḰ⪰G ḩᵐ䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG G

G G G PG YWXY≸G ]㠈ᾀ㫴G 㚱㋁G 㢨䚽㜄G ␴䚐G 㫸㤸G ㇵ䞝㡸G 㫴㋁㤵㡰⦐G 㥄ᶴ䚌ḔSG 㢨㜄G ␴䚐G ạ㥐㤵SG 㫴㜡㤵G 㢨䚽G 㵹ⱨ㉥㡸G 㥐Ḕ䚔G ㍌G 㢼⏈G ㉔ⷸ╌ḔSG 㤵䚝䚐G 㫴䖐㝴G ⯝䖐㜄G 䚝㢌䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG ᵐⵐ ⓸ㇵạG 㨰⓸㢌G 㢨⏼㊈䐤⽀㜄G ὤⵌ㡸G ▄ḔSG ὤ㦨G 㠄㦤䟜Ḱ㉥G 㠄㾍㜄G ␴䚐G 㥄ᶴG ᷱ䜌㡸G ὤⵌ 㡰⦐G 䚐␘UG 㟤⫠⏈G w TtknG 䘸⤼㢸㠀䆠㢌G ⬙⢱㜄㉐G 㢨⤠䚐G 㦤㾌⪰G ᶴ䋔䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG 㟤⫠ ⏈G 㥉ὤ㤵㡰⦐G 㢨⤠䚐G 䞐┍G ᷤḰ⪰G ⵐ䖐䚔G ᶷ㢨␘U G G G PG ᵐⵐ䟜Ḱ㉥G ᵐ㉔G ⊬⥙㢌G 㫸㤸G ㇵ䞝㡸G 㥄ᶴ䚌ḔG ἬG 㜵䛙㡸G 䓽ᴴ䚌⏈G 㜡⣽㡸G ᵉ䞈䚌⏈G ᵐⵐ ⓸ㇵạG 㨰⓸㢌G 㢨⏼㊈䐤⽀⪰G 㫴㠄䚐␘UG Z]UG 㟤⫠⏈G 䝅⥙㡸G ᵉ䞈䚌ḔG ḩ┍㢌G ⯝䖐㝴G 㵜ⷸ䞈═G 䚽┍㡸G 㡔㫴䚌ὤG 㠸䚨㉐⏈G ἴ⦐ⷀG 㵜㠄㢌G 䔠Ḹ㤵㢬G ␴䞈G ⊬⥙SG ㇵ䝬䚍㏩G ⵃG 㵹ⱨ㉥ḰG 䚜‌G 㫴㋁㤵㢬G Ḕ㠸ἽG 㥉㾌㤵G 㫴㠄㢨G 䙸㟈䚌␘⏈G ㇠㐘㡸G 㢬㫴䚐␘UG 㫴㜡ὤẠ☘㡴G 䜸㣙㜄㉐㢌G 㢨䚽㡸G 㫴㠄䚌ḔG ⷈ㉬᷸㤵G ⊬⥙ḰG ㍌㠄ạ㢌G 㟤㉔Ḱ㥐 ⪰G 㜤᷸䚌⏈⒤G 㢼㛨㉐G 㩅㟈䚐G 㜡䚔㡸G 䚔G ㍌G 㢼ḔSG Ἤ⤠䚐G 㜡䚔㡸G 䚨㚰G 䚐␘UG |uG ᵐⵐ䝅⥙䔠⤰ Ok G j G m P⓸G ⺴㇤㹑䟀㢌G 䚝㢌㇠䚡㡸G 㢨䚽䚌⏈⒤G 㜡䚔㡸G 䚔G ㍌G 㢼⓸⦑G 䚐␘UG 㢨⤠䚐G ⯝䖐⪰G 㠸䚨㉐G ␘㢀G ㇠䚡㡸G 㢨䚽䚔G ᶷ㢨␘UG

G G G PG ㇼ⦡ḔG 䔠Ḹ㤵㢬G ˄䟜Ḱ㤵㢬G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙㡸G 㠸䚐G ἴ⦐ⷀG 䑀䏬∼㐡˅On G w G G l G k G j T P㡸G Ạ㻉䚌㜠SG 㥉㾌㤵G ㍌㨴㜄㉐G 㚱㋁G 㢨䚽㡸G 㫴㠄䚌 ḔG 㵹ⱨ㉥㡸G ᵊ⓸⦑G 䚐␘UG ┍G 䑀䏬∼㐡㡴G ␘㛅㉥㡸G 䔠㟝䚌⏈G 㜨⫤G 䙀⣟䔰㡸G 䋩䚨G 㫴㐑㢌G Ẅ䞌ḰG 㨰ὤ㤵㡰⦐G 㫸㤸㇠䚡㡸G ᶴ䋔䚌⏈G 䔠⤰㡸G Ạ㻉䚐␘UG G G G G PG YWXY≸G ]㠈ᾀ㫴G ㇼ⦐㟨G 䑀䏬∼㐡㢌G ᴴⷰ㟨O PG 䝉䈐㢌G 㟨㜵ⵝ㙼㜄G ␴䚨G 䚝㢌䚐␘UG ┍G ⵝ㙼㜄⏈G ㇼ⦐㟨G 䑀䏬∼㐡㢌G Ạ㉥㠄SG ᴵ⨀ἽG 㢬㇠㢌G 㥉ὤ㤵G 㵬㜠ⵝ㙼SG ␘⪬G ᵐⵐ䝅⥙G 䔠⤰㡸G ⸨㝸䚌ḔSG 㜤᷸䚌⏈G ⵝ㙼㡸G 䔠䚜䚐␘UG G G G PG 㠄㦤䟜Ḱ㣅㛹ⵌ㜄᷀G ┍G ᷤḰⱬ㉐⪰G ㏭㢬䚌⏈G ạᴴ㝴G ᵐⵐ㨰㷨ᴴG 㵬㜠䚌⏈G 䟀㢌⪰G ᵐ㺐䚌㜠G ㇼ⦐㟨G ἴ⦐ⷀG 䑀䏬∼㐡G 㟨㜵ⵝ㙼G ⵃG ἴ⦐ⷀG ⯜⏼䉤⫵ḰG 㵹㢸㡸G 㫴㠄䚔G 㫴䖐㝴G 㵸≄㡸G Ạ㻉䚌⏈⒤G 䚝㢌䋔⦑G 䚌ḔSG YWXY≸G ]㠈ᾀ㫴G 㠄㦤䟜Ḱ㣅㛹ⵌḰG Ḵ⥜G 㦤㫵G 䞐┍㢌G 㥄㫸㤵G 㦹⨀⪰G 㨴⽸䚌⓸⦑G 㟈㷡䚐␘U G G G PG vljk㝴G 㡔㜈ᵐⵐ᷸䟁O| G u G k G w P㜄᷀G 㫴Ἴᾀ㫴㢌G ㇵ䝬䝅⥙ ḰG ᴵ㣄㢌G 㜡䚔G ⵃG ⽸Ẅ㟤㠸G 㜵㜡㡸G ⵈ䈉㡰⦐G ἴ⦐ⷀG 䑀䏬∼㐡㢨G 䟜Ḱ㤵㡰⦐G ὤ⏙䚌⓸⦑G 㫴㠄䚔G ᶷ㡸G 㟈㷡䚐␘UG G G V↑V

TG XXG T

- 51 -

부산 세계개발원조총회 최종결과와 향후과제

[OECD] Working Party on Aid Effectiveness

PROPOSED MANDATE FOR THE GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR EFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION

28-29 June 2012, UNESCO, Paris Proposal by the Post-Busan Interim Group

- 53 -

Unclassified

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)7/REV1

Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION DIRECTORATE

Development Assistance Committee

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)7/REV1 Unclassified

Working Party on Aid Effectiveness

PROPOSED MANDATE FOR THE GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR EFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION Proposal by the Post-Busan Interim Group

28-29 June 2012, UNESCO, Paris

This document is shared with participants for DISCUSSION and APPROVAL under item 2 of the draft agenda [DCD/DAC/EFF/A(2012)4]. It sets out the proposal of the Post-Busan Interim Group (PBIG) for the mandate of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation. This version builds on a draft reviewed by the PBIG in its last meeting (21-22 May) and reflects the agreement reached in the Group.

Contact: Ms Hanna-Mari Kilpeläinen, tel: +33 (0) 1 45 24 90 36, email: hanna-mari.kilpelainen@oecd.org English - Or. English

Complete document available on OLIS in its original format This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

- 55 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)7/REV1

ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL

The Busan Partnership agreement, the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, calls for the establishment of a “new, inclusive and representative Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation to support and ensure accountability for the implementation of commitments at the political level” (§36) and tasks the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness (WP-EFF) to agree by June 2012 on light working arrangements for the Global Partnership “in preparation for the phasing out of the WP-EFF and its associated structures” (§36). The WP-EFF mandated in early 2012 a group of senior level negotiators, the Post-Busan Interim Group (PBIG), to lead in defining the working arrangements for the Global Partnership, including its membership and opportunities for regular ministerial level engagement that complements, and is undertaken in conjunction with, other fora. In its three meetings, which took place in Paris 13-14 February, 4-5 April and 21-22 May 2012, the PBIG agreed on the objectives and functions of the Global Partnership and on the working arrangements that would best support these functions. Building on these discussions and consensus reached within the group, this document presents the PBIG proposal for the mandate of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation. It is submitted to the WP-EFF for discussion and approval in its final plenary meeting on 28-29 June 2012. Upon approval of the mandate, the WP-EFF will cease to exist and the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation will take effect as foreseen by the agreement reached in the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness.

2 - 56 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)7/REV1 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR EFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION MANDATE (2012 – 2015)1

I. Overall Objectives and Core Functions of the Global Partnership 1. The outcome document of the fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, The Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, sets out shared principles, common goals and differential commitments for improving the effectiveness of international development co-operation. 2. Accepting that “the strengthening of our co-operation and the adherence to both common goals and differential commitments calls for continued high-level political support, as well as an inclusive space for dialogue, mutual learning and accountability at the global level”, the Busan Partnership agreement calls for the establishment of a “new, inclusive and representative Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (hereafter “Global Partnership”) to support and ensure accountability for the implementation of commitments at the political level” (§36). 3. More specifically, the Busan Partnership agreement foresees that the Global Partnership will offer “an open platform that embraces diversity, providing a forum for the exchange of knowledge and the regular review of progress”. To fulfil its role as envisioned by the Busan Partnership agreement, the Global Partnership will focus on the following core functions: 

Maintain and strengthen political momentum for more effective development co-operation;



Ensure accountability for implementing Busan commitments;



Facilitate knowledge exchange and sharing of lessons learned; and



Support implementation of Busan commitments at the country level.

4. In keeping with the spirit of the Busan Partnership agreement, the membership of the Global Partnership is inclusive to all actors with a stake in development. The Global Partnership is open to all recipients of development cooperation, providers of development cooperation (both bilateral and multilateral), recipients and providers of development cooperation, civil society organisations, parliamentarians and private sector stakeholders that endorse the Busan Partnership agreement. Countries and organisations wishing to engage with the Global Partnership may be represented directly or through a regional organisation or another country/organisation. 5. As the Global Partnership brings together a broad range of stakeholders to uphold accountability for shared principles and differential commitments, it is expected that different stakeholders will play a proactive role in defining their respective commitments and actions within the framework of the Busan agreement. Recognising that efforts to make development co-operation more effective are diverse and continue to evolve, the Global Partnership will facilitate inclusive policy dialogue that builds on knowledge sharing. 6. The role of regional organisations in supporting the implementation of HLF4 commitments, including in facilitating knowledge sharing and convening constituencies, is widely recognised by the 1.

It is foreseen that the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation will review and possibly update its mandate after 2015 to take account of the context of the post-MDG framework.

3 - 57 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)7/REV1 Global Partnership. Furthermore, the potentially significant role of the thematic Building Blocks and other voluntary alliances that arose from HLF4 in implementing Busan commitments is recognised. While these continue to exist as self standing alliances, the Global Partnership welcomes inputs from these actors to inform its work and to support political dialogue around effective development co-operation. In engaging to promote implementation of HLF4 commitments, it is expected that regional organisations, as well as other actors, will co-ordinate their efforts within each region to avoid duplication and overlap. Recipient countries of development co-operation will lead in defining the priorities and challenges that should be addressed by the Global Partnership. 7. The Global Partnership represents a key international forum for political dialogue on issues related to the effectiveness of development co-operation. It will engage with other international fora, such as the United Nations Development Co-operation Forum (UNDCF). It will also liaise with relevant groups of actors, such as the G20. These efforts are intended to promote consultative dialogue on development cooperation and to build synergies and substantive complementarity.

II. Working Arrangements 2.1. Ministerial level meetings 8. Ministerial-level meetings2 taking place every 18-24 months will present the key forum for political dialogue and decision making within the Global Partnership. Ministerial level meetings will focus on the following core functions: 

Reviewing progress in implementation of Busan commitments, ensuring continued political accountability;



Addressing key issues arising from country level evidence;



Sharing experiences on different modalities of development co-operation with a view to providing guidance for more effective development co-operation based on lessons learned;



Exploring emerging opportunities for effective development co-operation; and



Endorsing Steering Committee membership (see below).

9. The primary role of the Global Partnership will be to focus on implementation of commitments and actions agreed to in the Busan Partnership agreement. At the same time, the agenda setting will entail the necessary flexibility to allow ministers to address topical and emerging issues relevant for effective development co-operation. In addressing key issues arising from evidence, ministerial level meetings may be structured around problem solving, thematic, and/or context-driven approaches. 10. Venues and timing of meetings will allow flexibility to ensure relevance, strong impact and efficiency of ministerial level meetings. Possibilities to organise meetings back-to-back with other relevant meetings, such as the UNDCF, will be explored whenever appropriate and possible.

Including high-level representatives of non-governmental stakeholders.

4 - 58 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)7/REV1 2.2. Chairing Arrangements and Steering Committee 11. A Steering Committee will support the ministerial level platform, providing the strategic leadership, coordination and oversight necessary for ensuring a coherent work programme for the Global Partnership. The Steering Committee will consist of the Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership and of members to the Committee. The Steering Committee of the Global Partnership may take decisions as directed by the ministerial level meeting and will focus on the following core functions: 

Steering the work of the ministerial meeting, including identifying strategic priorities and setting the agenda;



Acting as „ambassadors‟ of the Global Partnership to other international and regional processes, ensuring that priorities and key messages of the Global Partnership are reflected in relevant discussions taking place in other fora;



Guiding the work of the Secretariat, including support for accountability reporting to ministerial level; and



Undertaking other tasks as may be directed during the ministerial meetings.

12. The Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership will represent the Global Partnership externally, guide its work and be responsible for delivering its overall objectives. They will chair the ministerial level meetings and lead the work of the Steering Committee by way of a co-chairing arrangement, with three Chairs representing i) recipients of development co-operation; ii) recipients and providers of development co-operation; and iii) providers of development co-operation. 13. The Steering Committee membership aims to capture the diversity and reflect the perspectives of key stakeholders in the Global Partnership as well as to strike a balance between efficiency and representativeness. The composition of the Committee is based on a constituency based approach, with the following membership3: Steering Committee of the Global Partnership Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership 1 Recipient of development co-operation 1 Recipient and provider of development co-operation 1 Provider of development co-operation Members of the Steering Committee 5 Representatives of recipients of development co-operation, one of which is a representative of the g7+ group of fragile and conflict-affected states 1 Representative of recipients and providers of development cooperation 3 Representative of providers of development cooperation 1 Representative of private sector stakeholders 1 Representative of parliamentarians 1 Representative of civil society stakeholders 1 Representative of multilateral development banks 1 Representative of the UNDP/UNDG 1 Representative of the OECD/DAC

The composition of the Steering Committee may be revisited in connection to revising the mandate of the Global Partnership post-2015.

5 - 59 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)7/REV1 14. Steering Committee members will play a key role in facilitating policy dialogue; bringing knowledge and experience from their constituencies into preparing the substantive agenda of the Global Partnership; conveying messages of the Global Partnership to other international and regional processes, thereby acting as ambassadors of the Global Partnership; and promoting the interests of the Global Partnership to ensure that effective development co-operation remains a key issue on the agenda for international development. 15. Candidates for Co-Chairs and Steering Committee members will be nominated by the constituencies respectively. Steering Committee membership, including the Co-Chairs, will be endorsed by the ministerial level meeting for the term leading up to the subsequent ministerial level meeting. 4 The rotational feature of representation within constituencies may support ownership and inclusiveness in the work of the Steering Committee. Committee members will be expected to actively consult with their constituents to ensure that their constituency‟s priorities are reflected in the decision making of the Steering Committee. In this regard the potential of existing, self-standing alliances and networks to facilitate consultations and consolidate views among constituencies is recognised; and joint inputs from networks such as the „Partner Country Caucus‟5 to the work of the Steering Committee are welcomed and encouraged. 16. The Steering Committee will meet every 6-12 months or more frequently as required. The committee will work in a consultative manner and ensure its decision making is transparent and accountable to the broad membership of the Global Partnership. 2.3. Support to the functioning of the Global Partnership 17. The Busan Partnership agreement invites the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to “support the effective functioning of the Global Partnership, building on their collaboration to date and their respective mandates and areas of comparative advantage” (§36d). 18. As the OECD and UNDP fulfil a range of secretariat functions in support of the Global Partnership, both organisations will draw on their existing structures to work together to deliver these functions in an efficient and complementary manner. 19. Members of the Global Partnership and its Steering Committee will be expected to lead in the implementation of commitments as well as contributing to the substance of the Global Partnership‟s work. At the same time there are a number of areas in which the OECD and UNDP will be called on to deliver light global “secretariat” functions, which may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following outputs6: 

Develop, refine and implement a global methodology for monitoring the implementation of commitments set out in the Busan Partnership document;



Produce and disseminate relevant analytic work – including regular global reports based on monitoring of the BPd – to inform political dialogue and facilitate knowledge sharing;

The initial Steering Committee will be endorsed by the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness in June 2012. In managing the rotation of its members, the Steering Committee should consider ways of ensuring continuity in its work.

Referring to the Partner Country Caucus of recipient countries of development cooperation.

To be adjusted and refined further as support needs evolve.

6 - 60 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)7/REV1 

Provide demand-driven advisory support on the implementation of partnership and accountability frameworks in developing countries;



Organise ministerial-level meetings of the Global Partnership; and



Deliver secretariat and advisory services to the Steering Committee and co-chairs, supporting their day-to-day functioning.

20. The OECD and UNDP will establish a joint programmatic framework in respect of their support to the functioning of the Global Partnership, ensuring a streamlined approach to the planning, financing and implementation of these activities. The OECD and UNDP will together report to the Steering Committee of the Global Partnership on the implementation of their respective components of the joint programme, with the Steering Committee guiding the work of the two organisations in support of the Global Partnership. 21. The OECD and UNDP will co-ordinate their resource mobilisation efforts in respect of the joint programme of support, recognising that their ability to meet the support needs of the Global Partnership depends on adequate funding being made available through both organisations. Resources for OECDexecuted activities will be channelled through the OECD Development Assistance Committee‟s Programme of Work and Budget, while UNDP-executed activities will be financed through contribution agreements signed with interested partners. ***

7 - 61 -

부산 세계개발원조총회 최종결과와 향후과제

[OECD] Working Party on Aid Effectiveness

PROPOSED INDICATEORS, TARGETS AND PROCESS FOR GLOBAL MONITORING OF THE BUSAN PARTNERSHIP FOR EFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION

28-29 June 2012, UNESCO, Paris Proposal by the Post-Busan Interim Group

- 63 -

Unclassified

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION DIRECTORATE

Development Assistance Committee

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1 Unclassified

Working Party on Aid Effectiveness

PROPOSED INDICATORS, TARGETS AND PROCESS FOR GLOBAL MONITORING OF THE BUSAN PARTNERSHIP FOR EFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION Proposal by the Post-Busan Interim Group

28-29 June 2012, UNESCO, Paris

This document is shared with participants for DISCUSSION and APPROVAL under item 2 of the draft agenda [DCD/DAC/EFF/A(2012)4]. It sets out the proposal of the Post-Busan Interim Group (PBIG) for the indicators, targets and process through which implementation of the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation will be monitored at the global level. More detailed information on the scope of this proposal and the process through which it was developed is provided in the section entitled "About this proposal". This version builds on a draft reviewed by the PBIG at its last meeting (21-22 May 2012). It has been revised to reflect changes agreed by the group.

Contact: Ms. Marjolaine Nicod, tel. +33 (0)1 45 24 87 67, email: marjolaine.nicod@oecd.org Mr. Robin Ogilvy, tel. +33 (0)1 45 24 94 48, email: robin.ogilvy@oecd.org English - Or. English

- 65 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL

The Busan Partnership agreement (BPa) calls on the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness (WP-EFF) to agree by June 2012 on “the indicators and channels through which global monitoring and accountability will be supported”. In particular, it commits stakeholders to agreeing on “a selective and relevant set of indicators and targets through which we will monitor progress on a rolling basis, supporting international and regional accountability for the implementation of our commitments.” The WP-EFF assigned the task of developing a detailed proposal to the post-Busan Interim Group (PBIG). This paper presents the proposal developed by the PBIG on behalf of the WP-EFF. It is submitted to the WP-EFF for approval in its plenary meeting of 28-29 June 2012. What does this proposal include? This proposal sets out the following elements of the global framework for monitoring the Busan Partnership agreement which should be approved by the WP-EFF: 

A set of indicators and associated targets which act as a basis for promoting international accountability for implementing the Busan Partnership agreement. For each indicator, targets are proposed (with baseline figures where these are available), key concepts are defined, the construction of the indicator is described, and data sources are identified in a sufficient level of detail to act as a basis for the development of operational guidance by the Global Partnership secretariat.



A description of the international process through which data will be collected, analysed and reported. This will act as a basis for the secretariat’s support for global monitoring efforts.

What is not included? The WP-EFF is not being invited to take decisions on all aspects of efforts to monitor and report on the implementation of the Busan Partnership agreement. Many decisions will be taken by stakeholders at the level of individual countries, and further guidance may be issued by the Steering Committee of the Global Partnership as needed. To this end, this proposal does not include: 

Information on country-specific efforts to monitor Busan commitments, which are an important feature of the Busan agreement, and will be developed by stakeholders at the country level to respond to their own needs and context.



Detailed terms of reference for narrative reporting or qualitative approaches to monitoring progress (the Busan agreement commits us to agreeing on indicators and targets by June 2012, though as part of this process some guidance may be offered on complementary approaches that could be taken up by the Steering Committee of the Global Partnership in due course).



Efforts to monitor the implementation of commitments going beyond those made in the Busan agreement (for example, additional commitments or efforts made through voluntary initiatives such as the Busan “building blocks”) – these being beyond the remit of the WP-EFF.

2 - 66 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1 How was this proposal developed? WP-EFF members have – both directly and through their PBIG representatives – played an important role in guiding the development of this proposal, which is based on: 

Initial written submissions from PBIG members, in which they set out their priorities in terms of which Busan commitments should be monitored at the international level. These submissions also included information on planned or ongoing processes to monitor elements of the Busan agreement, which have helped in identifying potential data sources of relevance.



Extensive discussion within the April 2012 meeting of the PBIG in which members agreed on a limited list of themes for global monitoring and criteria to guide the development of indicators.



A joint proposal for specific indicators submitted jointly by partner country members of the PBIG, which was in turn reviewed in detail by a group of volunteers from within the PBIG under the chairmanship of the United Kingdom and Rwanda.



Detailed review and discussion by the PBIG of an earlier version of this proposal [DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8], which builds on the work led by Rwanda and the UK. The current proposal reflects the consensus reached by the PBIG in its last meeting (21-22 May 2012).



In advising on the development of successive proposals, the Secretariat has drawn on the lessons documented from the previous Surveys on Monitoring the Paris Declaration. It has also drawn on the advice of experts within other organisations, including UNDP/UNDG and the World Bank.

What happens next? Once approved by the WP-EFF, the contents of the proposal will act as the basis for the development of detailed operational guidance by the Global Partnership secretariat during the second half of 2012. This will enable stakeholders to implement the methodology and report data regularly. The indicator factsheets provided in Annex A guided the work of the PBIG and informed the consensus set out in this paper. They incorporate feedback received from a number of stakeholders, though the technical nature of their content – as well as time constraints in the consultation process – mean that they were not the subject of detailed discussion in meetings of the PBIG. For some indicators relating to themes or commitments that will be monitored for the first time through such a global process (indicators 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8), additional work is needed to ensure the feasibility of the methodology outlined in this paper. Thorough testing of the proposed methodology for these indicators will ensure that they offer a meaningful input to inform discussion within the Global Partnership. Work in these areas will be co-ordinated by the Global Partnership secretariat, in close collaboration with interested stakeholders within the Global Partnership and under the overall guidance of the Steering Committee with a view to confirming detailed methodology in the second half of 2012. For other indicators, the detailed methodologies presented will be used as a basis for implementation, as they draw on lessons learned from previous monitoring efforts and inputs from various members of the Global Partnership. Section 4 of this document sets out suggestions that the Steering Committee could take on board as it oversees international monitoring efforts, including the periodic review of global indicators and the methodology underpinning them. It recognises that stakeholders within the Global Partnership have an interest in continuing to develop monitoring and measurement methods as they relate to Busan commitments.

3 - 67 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF GLOBAL MONITORING ..................................................5 1.1 1.2 1.3.

GLOBAL INDICATORS AND TARGETS ............................................................................................7 2.1 2.2 2.3

Overview ...........................................................................................................................................7 Data sources and detailed indicator methodologies ..........................................................................7 Baselines and targets .........................................................................................................................7

IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS ............................................................................................9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Context: the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation .......................................5 Purpose of the global monitoring framework ...................................................................................6 Embedding indicators and targets in a broader assessment of progress............................................6

Timing and periodicity ......................................................................................................................9 Stakeholder participation and quality assurance ...............................................................................9 Dissemination of findings and use of complementary qualitative evidence .....................................9 Arrangements for support to participating countries and organisations..........................................10

OVERSIGHT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS ..............................................................................12 4.1 4.2

Arrangements for oversight.............................................................................................................12 Reviewing the global monitoring framework .................................................................................12

ANNEX A – INDICATOR FACTSHEETS .................................................................................................13 Indicator 1. Development co-operation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities .14 Indicator 2. Civil society operates within an environment that maximises its engagement in and contribution to development ......................................................................................................................16 Indicator 3. Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development .....................................18 Indicator 4. Transparency: information on development co-operation is publicly available .....................19 Indicator 5a. Development co-operation is more predictable (annual predictability)................................20 Indicator 5b. Development co-operation is more predictable (medium-term predictability) ....................21 Indicator 6. Aid is on budgets which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny ..............................................23 Indicator 7. Mutual accountability among co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews24 Indicator 8. Gender equality and women’s empowerment ........................................................................25 Indicator 9a. Quality of developing country PFM systems .......................................................................27 Indicator 9b. Use of country PFM and procurement systems ....................................................................29 Indicator 10. Aid is untied .........................................................................................................................31

4 - 68 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

1.1

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF GLOBAL MONITORING

Context: the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation

1. The Busan Partnership agreement (BPa) is the result of an inclusive process of consultation and negotiation in preparation for the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF4 – Busan, Republic of Korea, 29 November – 1 December 2011). Finalised during HLF4 itself, the BPa sets principles, goals and commitments that aim to improve the effectiveness – and in turn the results – of development co-operation. It is informed by the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and Accra Agenda for Action (2008), and sees the endorsers of these agreements reaffirming their respective commitments alongside the new commitments agreed by a much broader set of stakeholders in Busan. 2. The BPa is a joint declaration of a political nature. The BPa places an emphasis on country-level implementation and the monitoring of efforts in ways that meet the needs of developing countries and are appropriate to country context. Countries and organisations lending their support to the BPa have also agreed to “hold each other accountable for implementing [their] respective actions in developing countries and at the international level” (BPa §13). More specifically, the agreement foresees: 

Country-led efforts to put in place frameworks to monitor progress and strengthen mutual accountability for the effectiveness of development co-operation, and in turn development results.



Global-level agreement, by June 2012, on a framework – including a selective and relevant set of international indicators and targets – that will be used to monitor progress towards more effective development co-operation. (See BPa §35-36.)

3. The BPa stresses the voluntary nature of the agreement reached in Busan, recognising that different stakeholders may approach a common agenda for development in different ways. Participation in global efforts to monitor the implementation of the BPa is also on a voluntary basis, and is not a prerequisite for participation by stakeholders in the broader political dialogue and activities undertaken under the auspices of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation. 4. Given the nature of South-South co-operation and the specific characteristics of South-South partners, it is expected that the experience and achievements of these partners in implementing the Busan principles, commitments and actions will be shared on a voluntary basis (for example, through selfreporting on their efforts in areas of interest to them). In this initial Partnership arrangement, these providers of development co-operation are not expected to participate in the global monitoring system proposed. Their future participation in aspects of the global system is a decision left to evolving and sovereign processes, and this will in no way inhibit their full participation in the Partnership as SouthSouth partners.

5 - 69 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1 1.2

Purpose of the global monitoring framework

5. The global monitoring process will inform ministerial-level dialogue within the Global Partnership. Building on previous experience in the monitoring of the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action, it is expected that the global framework linked with the BPa should: 

Support accountability for the implementation of the Busan commitments and actions by providing a snapshot of progress at the international level;



Stimulate broad-based dialogue at both the country and international levels on how to improve the effectiveness of development co-operation, including by signalling obstacles and opportunities for further progress.

6. These international efforts are intended to complement and build on efforts at the country level monitoring progress and strengthen mutual accountability. Stakeholder feedback suggests that developing countries have found the existence of a global framework and targets to be a helpful reference point for negotiating more detailed and relevant in-country frameworks in the past, supporting accountability at the country level. 7. While the indicators offer a degree of insight into the efforts of individual countries and organisations as they implement their commitments, it is important to emphasise that they are intended to act as an input to a broader political dialogue on development co-operation and its effectiveness, rather than to act as a narrow score card for the ranking of countries and organisations. This is particularly the case for those indicators where the results shown cannot be attributed clearly to one stakeholder. Recognition also needs to be given to the different institutional mandates of development co-operation providers, which may explain variations in performance. 8. While the BPa calls for a stronger focus on development results, the purpose of this global framework is to support international accountability for “making progress in the implementation of commitments and actions agreed in Busan” (BPa §35). It therefore places particular emphasis on behaviour change in development co-operation efforts, which is in turn expected to contribute to the achievement of results (monitoring of development outcomes is already addressed through other international frameworks, e.g. the Millennium Development Goals). 1.3.

Embedding indicators and targets in a broader assessment of progress

9. While the BPa foresees a set of indicators and targets to guide monitoring at the international level, there are benefits to be had from drawing on evidence of a qualitative nature to inform monitoring efforts. The selected set of indicators and targets will be supplemented by qualitative approaches and broader reporting on relevant aspects of the Busan Partnership in order to generate richer analysis of progress and ensure reporting that goes beyond a narrower focus on quantitative indicators. The Steering Committee may give further guidance on the range of approaches that could be used to assess progress, including in specific areas that the stakeholders have highlighted during consultations (e.g. capacity development and institutional strengthening; aid fragmentation; proliferation of aid channels).

6 - 70 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

2.1

GLOBAL INDICATORS AND TARGETS

Overview

10. Table 1 below presents an overview of the indicators through which Busan commitments will be monitored at the global level. It is worth emphasising the voluntary nature of engagement in the monitoring process at both the country and international levels. The population of countries and organisations covered by the global monitoring framework is thus determined through self-selection, and participation by different stakeholders may grow over time. 11. The list of global indicators is by definition limited in length. The indicators are intended primarily as an entry point for broader political dialogue, and as such they are not intended to offer comprehensive coverage of all principles and commitments on development co-operation. Efforts have been made to retain those indicators from the Paris Declaration monitoring framework that developing countries have identified as particularly important to them. These have been supplemented with a limited set of additional indicators that capture some of the broader dimensions of the Busan Partnership agreement (e.g. transparency, gender equality, private sector engagement and the enabling environment for CSOs). 2.2

Data sources and detailed indicator methodologies

12. The global framework consists of both indicators measured at the level of individual developing countries and aggregated to offer an overview of global progress, and indicators measured only at the global level (i.e. drawing on other global processes). Drawing on existing data sources helps to limit the burden on developing countries of participating in global monitoring efforts. At the same time, some data is (or should be) routinely available at the country level and the costs of collating this should be limited. 13. Detailed factsheets for each indicator are provided in Annex A. These factsheets set out the means of measurement, method of calculation and data source for each indicator. They also explain the specific Busan (or Paris/Accra) commitment(s) being assessed by each indicator, and describe the extent to which the methodology is already in use, or has been tried and tested. 2.3

Baselines and targets

14. A global target is proposed for each indicator. This does not prevent stakeholders for agreeing different targets at the country level. The rationale or logic underpinning each target is explained in the relevant indicator factsheet (Annex A). The proposed targets tend to be based either on the text of the Busan commitments (as is the case for indicators 2, 3 and 4, for example), or on the formulae agreed in the Paris Declaration targets (e.g. indicators 5-7 and 9-10). 15. Estimated baseline figures are provided for indicators where these are available. For most indicators, it is proposed that 2010 be used as the baseline year. For those indicators relating to Paris Declaration commitments, this has the advantage of reflecting progress made since Paris, and offering a baseline drawn from a much broader sample of countries (78 countries participated in the 2011 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration, which is the source of much of the baseline data). This may however

7 - 71 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1 result in more ambitious absolute targets than those agreed through the Paris Declaration (where the target is set relative to a 2010 baseline which is higher than the 2005 baseline). Table 1. Overview of proposed global indicators and targets Data source Indicator

Target (2015)

Existing international source

Collected at country level

1. Development co-operation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities ■ Extent of use of country results frameworks All providers of development co-operation use by co-operation providers (specific criteria to country results frameworks. be finalised). 2. Civil society operates within an environment which maximises its engagement in and contribution to development Enabling Environment Index.

Continued progress over time.

■

3. Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development (Measure to be identified, subject to relevant Continued progress over time. existing data source – see notes in Annex A.) 4. Transparency: information on development co-operation is publicly available (Measure of state of implementation of the common standard by co-operation providers to be elaborated based on broad approach set out in Annex A.)

Implement the common standard – All development co-operation providers are on track to implement a common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive and forwardlooking information on development co-operation.

■ (TBD)

■

5. Development co-operation is more predictable (a) annual: proportion of aid disbursed within the fiscal year within which it was scheduled by co-operation providers; and

Halve the gap – halve the proportion of aid not disbursed within the fiscal year for which it was scheduled (baseline year 2010).

■

(b) medium-term: proportion of aid covered by indicative forward spending plans provided at the country level.

Halve the gap – halve the proportion of aid not covered by indicative forward spending plans provided at the country level. (Baseline to be determined).

■

6. Aid is on budgets which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny % of aid scheduled for disbursement that is recorded in the annual budgets approved by the legislatures of developing countries.

■

Halve the gap – halve the proportion of aid flows to the government sector not reported on government’s budget(s) (with at least 85% reported on budget). (Baseline year 2010).

7. Mutual accountability among development co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews % of countries that undertake inclusive mutual assessments of progress in implementing agreed commitments.

All developing countries have inclusive mutual assessment reviews in place.

■

All developing countries have systems that track and make public resource allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment.

■

8. Gender equality and women’s empowerment % of countries with systems that track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment.

9. Effective institutions: developing countries’ systems are strengthened and used (a) Quality of developing country PFM systems; and

Half of developing countries move up at least one measure (i.e. 0.5 points) on the PFM/CPIA scale of performance. (Baseline year 2010).

(b) Use of country PFM and procurement systems.

Reduce the gap [use the same logic as in Paris – close the gap by two-thirds where CPIA score is >=5; or by one-third where between 3.5 and 4.5] (Baseline year 2010).

■

10. Aid is untied % of aid that is fully untied.

Continued progress over time. (Baseline year 2010).

8 - 72 -

■

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

3.1

IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

Timing and periodicity

16. Global reports of progress on implementing Busan commitments and actions will be produced to inform ministerial-level dialogue every 18-24 months, timed to coincide with ministerial-level meetings of the Global Partnership. 17. The timing and periodicity of data collection will depend on indicators and existing data sources on which they are based. In order to produce periodic global progress reports, the Global Partnership secretariat will draw on existing sources of data as and when they are available. This means that data collected routinely at the country level as part of existing exercises to monitor development cooperation and partnership efforts will be used to inform global indicators which rely on country-level information rather than administering global questionnaire-based surveys at fixed points in time (as was the case with the Paris Declaration survey). 18. Developing countries will be encouraged to ground data collection in existing national monitoring processes, according to their own calendar agreed in-country but using the standard methodology and definitions agreed at the international level for those indicators which rely on countrylevel information. Such data will then be released on a rolling basis, as they become available, for aggregation and use in global analysis. 3.2

Stakeholder participation and quality assurance

19. In keeping with the voluntary nature of the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, the decision to participate in monitoring efforts and collect and provide data for use in global reports is left to the individual country or provider of development co-operation. 20. While much of the data drawn on in the global framework is provided by governments and providers of development cooperation, a wider range of other stakeholders â&#x20AC;&#x201C; including CSOs, parliamentarians, local authorities and representatives of the private sector â&#x20AC;&#x201C; will be encouraged to participate in country dialogue around these issues. 21. Multi-stakeholder reviews at the country level fulfil an important quality assurance function. Undertaken in the context of countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; own monitoring frameworks, these should wherever possible be used as an opportunity to review key data that are being shared with the Global Partnership secretariat for inclusion in global analysis. Along with the helpdesk and country support arrangements described below, multi-stakeholder validation helps to ensure the accuracy of data used to monitor progress. Country-level stakeholders also have a quality assurance role to play in relation to the global methodology and process, and are encouraged to engage in the review activities proposed in section 4.2. 3.3

Dissemination of findings and use of complementary qualitative evidence

22. The scope and format of the global reports produced by the Global Partnership secretariat will be reviewed by the Steering Committee to ensure that progress reports address areas of relevant interest to the 9 - 73 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1 Global Partnership. The preparation of such reports will draw in part on the evidence of progress and challenges in implementing Busan commitments gathered through the agreed global level indicators set out in this document, and will also draw on relevant qualitative evidence to generate a richer analysis of progress. 23. In many instances, qualitative methods may offer the most appropriate (and sometimes the only) way of assessing progress against Busan commitments. International analysis of existing qualitative evidence will focus on producing syntheses of available evidence through a desk review approach, rather than seeking to generate new qualitative data through an additional global process. In particular, the Global Partnership secretariat will draw on qualitative evidence generated by:

3.4



Country-level assessments in the form of narrative reports produced by developing countries, which may consist of stand-alone national publications, or feature in existing country-level products (e.g. annual progress reports on national development strategies; National Human Development Reports or MDG reports).



Complementary international processes that monitor the effectiveness of development cooperation, including periodic global surveys focusing on progress in specific areas (e.g. UN DCF surveys on mutual accountability; sector initiatives such as the IHP+Results and EFA-FTI surveys; civil society-led reviews of the effectiveness of development co-operation).



Regional initiatives, that are established at the demand of developing countries, and that gather relevant evidence and facilitate the exchange of knowledge and good practices at the regional level. This includes, for example, the results of peer reviews (e.g. NEPAD, Pacific Islands Forum), which can strengthen accountability at the regional level and offer additional insights into the implementation of Busan commitments. Arrangements for support to participating countries and organisations

24. Consistent with the focus of monitoring efforts at the country level, countries are encouraged to agree on their own country-specific frameworks among actors at the country level. While responsibility for developing and implementing these frameworks lies primarily with developing country governments and their partners, the Global Partnership will provide support to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and good practice across countries. This will help to embed the collection of data for the global indicators within country-level frameworks and processes, and in turn strengthen statistical capacity in relation to development co-operation. 25. If there is interest and demand from developing countries, a global “menu of indicators” could be developed by participating countries with the support of the joint OECD/UNDP support team. Such an approach could assist developing countries as they develop country- and context-specific indicators to track progress in the implementation of partnership commitments (Box 1). 26. A global Helpdesk facility will be maintained by the OECD and UNDP to provide advice to stakeholders in the implementation of the agreed methodologies and processes for monitoring across participating countries and organisations. This builds on positive feedback received from stakeholders on the support provided by both organisations in the context of previous surveys on monitoring the Paris Declaration.

10 - 74 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

Box 1. Supporting country- and context-specific monitoring efforts through a "menu of indicators" While developing countries have committed to developing their own frameworks to monitor the effectiveness of co-operation – which may include indicators and targets – a range of existing methodologies are already in use at the country level and can be drawn on in the design of such frameworks. In earlier consultations, several countries expressed an interest in finding ways to share standards, indicators and methodologies relevant to the assessment of progress with other countries facing similar challenges. Stakeholders from across developing countries could work together – with the support of the OECD/UNDP team – to develop a “menu of indicators” that can be put at the disposal of other countries. Where a country or organisation has a particular interest in developing an indicator to track a specific development co-operation issue, advice can be provided and – once the approach has been tested and is considered to be methodology sound – the methodology is made available to other countries interested in using it. This may be of interest to countries interested in monitoring specific commitments on conflict and fragility, for example. Such an approach would: 

reduce the burden faced by countries in developing indicators from scratch, with countries facing similar challenges and monitoring needs pooling ideas and expertise to develop appropriate methods; and



support a degree of comparison and aggregation across countries, which would become feasible in those areas where countries choose to use the same indicators and approaches.

Examples of issues that several countries have indicated an interest in monitoring at the country level through this sort of approach could include use of country-level aid information management systems; in-country fragmentation (e.g. along sectoral or thematic lines); implementation by CSOs of practices that implement their accountability.

11 - 75 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

4.1

OVERSIGHT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Arrangements for oversight

27. The Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation is the ultimate forum for overseeing efforts to monitor the implementation of Busan commitments. Its Steering Committee would be called on to provide strategic guidance on international monitoring efforts. Depending on the nature and scale of issues arising during the early stages of monitoring, the Steering Committee may consider establishing a dedicated working group, ad-hoc advisory panel or similar light structure to play a specific role in advising the OECD/UNDP team as it co-ordinates global monitoring and reporting efforts. 28. For global monitoring efforts to be credible and support genuine accountability, it will be important that targets are not left open for renegotiation. At the same time, the global monitoring efforts linked to Busan will need to remain relevant to an evolving international agenda. Some flexibility should be envisaged to accommodate new elements or refine methodologies further over time. 29. The Global Partnership may also need to reflect on the degree to which country-level efforts are underway, and where additional efforts may be needed to initiate or support the development of frameworks for monitoring progress and supporting mutual accountability at the country level (for example, through the provision of support as described in section 3.4 above). 4.2

Reviewing the global monitoring framework

30. It is proposed that a light periodic review of global indicators and the methodology underpinning them is undertaken to coincide with periodic reports on progress. This offers the opportunity to take stock of monitoring efforts and ensure that the global indicators agreed in June 2012 remain relevant to developing countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs and priorities. This would also contribute to continued global learning on monitoring and draw on broader initiatives, including those of a more qualitative nature, to inform future monitoring and accountability efforts. 31. In addition, a more comprehensive review of the global arrangements for monitoring Busan commitments is proposed towards the end of 2015 / early 2016 with a view to assessing their relevance to, contribution and fit with any broader international development framework that emerges as a successor to the Millennium Development Goals.

12 - 76 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

ANNEX A â&#x20AC;&#x201C; INDICATOR FACTSHEETS

Detailed information on each indicator featuring in Table 1 is provided in the factsheets that follow overleaf. These have been developed to provide methodological detail which will in turn act as the basis for the development of detailed operational guidance by the Global Partnership secretariat. In addition to information on the means of measurement, method of calculation and data source for each indicator, the factsheets include notes that explain why a particular approach is proposed, and to what extent it is already in use, builds on lessons learned and/or needs further development, refinement or field-testing.

13 - 77 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

Indicator 1. Development co-operation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities Note: This is an area where no measurement has been undertaken so far. As such, the detailed definitions and means of measurement for this indicator remain subject to further work of a technical nature and would require field testing to refine the proposed assessment criteria. In order to keep the process simple, it could be based on a rapid assessment by government officials using a limited number of criteria on use of country results frameworks rather than a detailed assessment of how providers of development co-operation perform on an individual programme/project basis. The WP-EFF is invited to endorse the broad elements identified below, which will act as a reference for the Global Partnership secretariat as it works with concerned partners to finalise the methodology for measuring progress in the use of country results frameworks. Relevant Busan commitment

Measure

Paris Declaration (§45) and Accra (§23) commitments, as reaffirmed in Busan, to rely on partner country results frameworks and monitoring and evaluation systems.

% of providers of development co-operation using country results frameworks.

Busan commitment to adopt transparent, country-led and country-level results frameworks and platforms as a common tool among all concerned actors to assess performance based on indicators drawn from country development priorities and goals and with providers of development co-operation minimising their use of additional frameworks. (§18a) Indicator construction Numerator:

Denominator:

A score will be assigned using a graduated scale to assess the extent to which providers of development cooperation use country results frameworks, ranging from non use, through partial use to full use.

Data source Country level data – partner country government assessment against three dimensions.

Number of development co-operation providers that are using country results frameworks Total number of development cooperation providers

Periodicity to be determined at country level depending on needs and priorities and existing mutual accountability review processes.

Key definitions and criteria

Aggregation

Country results frameworks – a country’s approach to results and its associated monitoring and evaluation systems focusing on performance and achievement of development results which includes agreed objectives and output / outcome indicators with baselines and targets to measure progress in implementing them, as stated in national development strategies, sector plans and other frameworks (e.g. budget support performance matrices). Such frameworks should have been developed through participatory processes, involving inclusive dialogue with relevant stakeholders.

Global; per developing country; development co-operation.

Use of country results frameworks – providers of development co-operation use country results frameworks as a basis to assess the performance and the contribution to development outcomes of their partnership strategies with the country and the individual programmes and projects they are supporting with the funds they provide. This also means that providers of development cooperation do not impose an additional burden on developing countries through additional indicators and targets, separate data sets and fragmented monitoring and evaluation systems which could undermine their capacities. Dimensions to be assessed include: (i) use of indicators, baselines and targets from national development strategies, sector plans and other relevant

per

provider

Developing country and provider aggregation: % of providers and % of developing countries respectively. For global aggregation, a weighted average is used: i.e. sum of all numerator values divided by the sum of all denominator values. The unit of observation is the provider of development cooperation in a given developing country. (Consideration could also be given to weighting this indicator according to the volume of resources involved, though the desirability, feasibility and cost-effectiveness of this approach would need to be explored further).

14 - 78 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1 frameworks ; (ii) use of national statistics and data from sector information systems (iii) use of country monitoring and evaluation systems (country and/or sector level). Baseline

Proposed target

Not available.

All providers of development co-operation use country results frameworks. Rationale: based on the Busan commitment which calls on all actors to change behaviour in this area.

Additional information Making progress in this area is a shared between developing countries and providers of development co-operation. While evidence indicates that this is an area where progress has been lagging, this indicator would create incentives for providers of development co-operation to contribute to strengthen country results frameworks and associated M&E systems while using them. The purpose of this indicator is not to serve a narrow scorecard but to provide a basis to better understand the reasons for progress and remaining challenges in using country-led results frameworks and to raise political attention on issues such as continued additional or parallel reporting requirements by providers of development co-operation. Several stakeholders indicated an interest in looking at the quality of results frameworks, and in particular the inclusive processes through which they have been developed. Ways of establishing a link with the quality of results frameworks â&#x20AC;&#x201C; including through broader assessments of a more qualitative nature â&#x20AC;&#x201C; will be considered as part of the further technical work that will be undertaken on this indicator. This is an area where no measurement has been undertaken so far and would require field testing to refine the proposed assessment criteria. It would be based on perceptions of overall performance on use of country results frameworks rather than a systematic assessment of how providers of development co-operation perform on an individual programme/project basis.

15 - 79 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

Indicator 2. Civil society operates within an environment that maximises its engagement in and contribution to development Note: review and consultation efforts have pointed to the absence of an existing, proven methodology that can be drawn on to assess the Busan commitments in this area. As such, the detailed definitions and means of measurement for this indicator remain subject to further work of a technical nature. The WP-EFF is invited to endorse the broad elements identified below, which will act as a reference for the Global Partnership secretariat as it works with concerned partners to finalise the methodology. In this particular case, the indicator will be based on ongoing efforts by CIVICUS to develop an Enabling Environment Index. It is not expected that this approach should lead to the collection of new data. Rather, it will draw on data compiled by CIVICUS as part of its broader civil society-led initiative to improve the evidence base on the environment within which civil society operates. Relevant Busan commitment

Measure

[we will] “implement fully our respective commitments to enable CSOs to exercise their roles as independent development actors, with a particular focus on an enabling environment, consistent with agreed international rights, that maximises the contributions of CSOs to development.” (Busan §22a).

CIVICUS Enabling Environment Index (or selected components of the Index).

Indicator construction

Data source

The final selection of dimensions and measures will be influenced by CIVICUS’ ongoing work as part of a broader civil society-led initiative on the methodology for the Enabling Environment Index.

CIVICUS Enabling Environment Index.

Note: this index is currently being developed, and will offer a composite measure of the external environment within which civil society operates.

Measures and underlying data sources are still being identified and are likely to include datasets compiled by a range of public, private and non-governmental entities. CIVICUS (2012) provides a draft mapping of potential data sources.

In practice, this Busan Partnership indicator is likely to draw on part of the CIVICUS Enabling Environment Index, and will take the form of an average of selected dimensions/measures from within the Index (see notes below on the criteria for selecting these measures). The index is being constructed in a way that supports comparison over time and across countries. Key definitions and criteria

Aggregation

In finalising the selection of dimensions or subdimensions to be drawn from the CIVICUS index and used in this global indicator, particular consideration will be given to those components that relate most directly to the Busan commitments, and are largely within the control of stakeholders adhering to the Busan Partnership, i.e.  Legal and regulatory framework for civil society operations; and  Selected elements of the governance / political environment that have a direct bearing on civil society activity.

The unit of observation is the individual country (for all countries – both developing and developed – that choose to participate and for which data are available). The method for global aggregation will depend in part on final choice of indicator (could look at % of countries scoring above a particular score; or average score across all countries) to judge whether the target is met or not.

(Note: although relevant to a comprehensive analysis of the environment within which civil society operates, some of the dimensions proposed in CIVICUS (2012) may be less relevant to the assessment of stakeholders’ efforts in the context of the Busan Partnership agreement. This is the case for the proposed dimensions on the social and economic environment, and culture of civic participation, for example.)

16 - 80 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1 Baseline

Proposed target

To be determined (based on finalisation of indicator and first round of data compilation to be undertaken by CIVICUS, currently planned for Q1 2013).

Continued progress over time. Rationale: there is no basis in the BPa for a more specific target and the purpose of the indicator is to provide an entry point for a political discussion based on broad trends observed.

Additional information See CIVICUS (2012) for an overview of the current state of work to develop the CIVICUS Enabling Environment Index – as part of a broader civil society-led initiative – on which this Busan Partnership indicator will be based. It is worth noting that this indicator is informed by the efforts of a broader, independent work programme led by CIVICUS in collaboration with a range of civil society stakeholders. While the Busan Partnership monitoring framework offers one avenue through which some of the data compiled in the CIVICUS Enabling Environment Index will be disseminated, it is by no means the only one. CIVICUS and other civil society stakeholders have an interest in conducting additional, complementary research and analysis of relevance to the work of the Global Partnership and other local, national, regional and global fora. CIVICUS is currently examining the data sources underpinning its proposed Enabling Environment Index, and will then consult broadly with civil society organisations and other stakeholders on its methodology before finalising it and embarking on data collection and analysis late 2012 / early 2013. It plans to develop the Index through close consultation with a wide range of civil society stakeholders including its alliance members, the BetterAid network of CSOs and expert groups such as the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL). Some stakeholders noted that while this indicator does not aim to measure the progress made by CSOs in relation to their own practices (BPa §22b), other forms of evidence might be developed and drawn on by interested stakeholders to inform discussions on progress in the implementation of the Istanbul Principles and the International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness.

17 - 81 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

Indicator 3. Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development Note: Review and consultation is still on-going regarding the detailed definitions and means of measurement of this indicator which require further work of a technical nature. The WP-EFF is invited to endorse the broad elements identified below, which will act as a reference for the Global Partnership secretariat as it works with concerned partners to finalise the methodology. Relevant Busan commitment

Measure

Commitment to enable the participation of the private sector in the design and implementation of development policies and strategies to foster sustainable growth and poverty reduction (BPa§32b)

Index to assess the degree of inclusion of private sector stakeholders in country level dialogue around policy strategies and reforms of the enabling environment for private sector investment and development (subject to data availability). A score could be assigned to countries from zero inclusion to full inclusion, through partial inclusion.

Indicator construction

Data source

To be detailed further (work in progress). The indicator should assess the participation of the private sector (local and foreign, small, medium and large enterprises, business associations, chambers of commerce) and trade unions in the design and implementation of most important reforms of interest for private sector development (including those related to the improvement of the legal, regulatory and administrative environment for private sector investment). Key definitions and criteria

Ongoing work with key partners to assess how best to collect information which ensures country leadership and participation of the private sector (NB. Details to be elaborated further. The secretariat will consult with potential data providers to ascertain availability of data that would offer a reasonable, comparable and realistic quantitative and qualitative assessment of progress in this area).

“Private sector” refers to the for-profit private sector and should cover both local and foreign enterprises, as well as various sizes of companies. Participation of social partners such as trade unions in country-led policies will be included.

The unit of observation is the individual developing country.

Baseline

Proposed target

To be determined depending on choice of indicator and data source.

Continued progress over time.

Aggregation

The method for global aggregation will depend in part on final choice of indicator (could look at % of countries scoring above a particular score; or average score across all countries).

Rationale: the purpose of the indicator is to provide means to support broader political discussion on enhanced public private cooperation and further mobilisation of the private sector within the Global Partnership. Additional information Many stakeholders recognise that the inclusion of private sector involvement in the Busan monitoring framework would create useful incentives for partner countries and providers of development co-operation to scale up and deepen public-private dialogue and co-operation. This builds on the Joint Statement on “Expanding and enhancing publicprivate co-operation for broad-based, inclusive and sustainable development” (Principle 1 – Inclusive dialogue for building a policy environment conducive to sustainable development). For the purpose of this monitoring, focus is made on engagement of the private sector rather than on the impact of such engagement or other aspects such as the assessment of the enabling environment for private sector development. These are expected to be assessed separately (for instance through the Doing Business or the World Competitiveness Index for the latter) or through the Building Block activities as part of their broader assessment of progress in enhancing public private cooperation for broad-based, inclusive and sustainable development. The secretariat is working closely with interested partners (both government and non-governmental stakeholders) to review whether existing or new indicators, methods and data sets would be used.

18 - 82 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

Indicator 4. Transparency: information on development co-operation is publicly available Note: the common standard foreseen in the Busan Partnership agreement and which forms the basis of this indicator has yet to be finalised. As such, the detailed definitions and means of measurement for this indicator remain subject to further work of a technical nature, and will happen after the endorsement of the common standard itself (expected end June 2012). The WP-EFF is invited to endorse the broad elements identified below, which will act as a reference for the Global Partnership secretariat as it works with concerned partners to finalise the methodology for measuring progress in the implementation of the common standard. Relevant Busan commitment

Measure

“Implement a common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive and forward-looking information on resources provided through development co-operation... This standard must meet the information needs of developing countries and non-state actors... We will [aim to] implement it fully by December 2015. Busan (§23c).

Quantitative measure of state of implementation of the common standard by each provider of development cooperation (exact measure to be determined).

Indicator construction

Data source

To be determined. It is proposed that the group that defined and brokered agreement on the standard itself should agree on the details underpinning this indicator.

Details to be determined, depending on final choice of indicator.

Key definitions and criteria

Aggregation

Exact definitions and criteria will be determined drawing on the main elements of the agreed information standard.

The proposed unit of observation is the individual country providing development co-operation (in the case of bilateral co-operation providers) or organisation (in the case of multilateral providers). In other words, the indicator looks at whether a given provider of development co-operation has implemented the common standard (not how much aid or development finance is covered by the standard). Ideally the indicator would be defined in a way that supports aggregation to the global level, offering a snapshot of progress.

Baseline

Proposed target for end 2015

Not available.

Implement the common standard – All providers of development co-operation are on track to implement a common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive and forward-looking information on development co-operation. Rationale: Busan commitment.

Additional information In addition to assessing whether the 2015 target (full implementation of the standard) has been met or not, it would be desirable for the indicator to be defined in a way which:  provides a graduated measure of the degree of implementation of the standard (in other words, it takes the form of a scale which reflects efforts and recognises that compliance with the standard is not “all or nothing”);  does not involve the collection of new data at the country level.

19 - 83 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

Indicator 5a. Development co-operation is more predictable (annual predictability) Relevant Busan commitment

Measure

Paris Declaration commitment to “disburse aid in a timely and predictable fashion according to agreed schedules” (PD §26; reaffirmed in Busan).

Percentage of aid for the government sector disbursed in the year for which it was scheduled by providers of development co-operation.

Indicator construction

Data source

Numerator:

Aid flows reported by provider as disbursed in year n

Denominator:

Aid flows scheduled for disbursement by provider in year n

Country-level data (self-reporting by providers of development co-operation). Annual, according to the developing country’s own fiscal year.

Key definitions and criteria

Aggregation

Scope: ODA disbursements for the government sector (as defined in OECD (2010)).

In order to avoid the situation in which under- and overdisbursements cancel each other out, the ratio is inverted in cases where the numerator is greater than the denominator. This is consistent with the approach taken in OECD (2011).

ODA flows for year n are considered to have been “scheduled for disbursement” when notified to government in year n-1. It also includes ODA scheduled for disbursement in aid agreements entered into in year n. Note that the definition of ODA scheduled for disbursement is the same as that employed in OECD (2010).

Baseline 2010 (estimate, 78 countries): 75%

Note however that when aggregating (globally, by country or by provider of development co-operation), a weighted average is now used. i.e. sum of all numerator values divided by the sum of all denominator values. This replaces the average country ratio used in OECD (2011) and previous work. Proposed target for 2015 Halve the gap – halve the proportion of aid not disbursed within the fiscal year for which it was scheduled. (Based on 2010 baseline). Rationale: Paris Declaration target

Additional information Note that this indicator builds on the broad approach used in indicator 7 of the Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration, while introducing modifications that are intended to make it a better proxy for the predictability with which aid is disbursed by providers of development co-operation. This builds on stakeholder feedback and lessons learned. In particular, data for both the numerator and denominator are now sourced from providers of development cooperation, and the inclusion of aid flows in the numerator does not depend on the recording of these disbursements by the developing country government in its accounts. The reference period is now the developing country’s fiscal year (rather than the calendar year), and the method of aggregation has been changed (to use weighted averages). These modifications are introduced in response to stakeholder feedback.

20 - 84 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

Indicator 5b. Development co-operation is more predictable (medium-term predictability) Relevant Busan commitment

Measure

“By 2013... provide available, regular, timely rolling threeto five-year indicative forward expenditure and/or implementation plans as agreed in Accra...” (Busan §24a).

Estimated proportion of development co-operation covered by indicative forward expenditure and/or implementation plans covering at least three years ahead.

Indicator construction

Data source

For a single co-operation provider in a given country:

Data collected at country level (reporting by developing country governments on the availability of forward plans).

indicator year t = average (at+1, at+2, at+3) ...where at+n takes a binary value depending on the availability by the end of year t of a forward expenditure plan covering year t+n. 1 if plan available, else 0. Applies to aid for the government sector. Key definitions and criteria

Aggregation

Developing country government determines whether, on the basis of its records, a forward expenditure plan is available for each co-operation provider covering each of the next three years. In order to score “Yes”, the plan must meet each of the following criteria:  The plan covers all known components of the co-operation provider’s country programme (for example, it covers all aid modalities, and includes estimates of future aid volumes that have yet to be allocated to specific activities or signed in co-operation agreements).  Figures provided relate to the partner country government’s fiscal year. (These criteria are subject to field-testing and further refinement).

Aggregation at the level of each developing country, cooperation provider, and at the global level.

Baseline

Proposed target

Not available.

Halve the gap – halve the proportion of aid not covered by indicative forward spending plans provided at the country level. (Baseline year: 2011).

Average weighted by volume of ODA disbursed in t-1 (previous year). Note that this method of aggregation is intended to provide an estimate of the scale of resources covered by indicative forward expenditure and/or implementation plans. This reflects the relative importance that a developing country attaches to obtaining forward spending information from a large cooperation provider vis-à-vis a small provider.

Rationale: following the same approach as for in-year predictability (see indicator 5a)

21 - 85 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1 Additional information Note that data of this nature is not systematically collected at the country level at present, and would require partner country governments to report on the availability of forward spending information for each co-operation provider at regular intervals (this could be achieved through country-level aid information management systems where these are available, or may in the future draw on data published through the common transparency standard where this is implemented). Limited piloting of data collection would be necessary to confirm feasibility. Data sourced from partner country authorities is an important feature of this indicator, which aims to assess the extent to which partner country authorities have at their disposal information on co-operation providersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; forward spending intentions. (Global exercises such as the DAC survey of forward spending plans can provide additional insights, but do not offer information on the availability of forward spending plans to partner country authorities). The method of calculation and aggregation are adapted from the existing methodology established by the DAC in its regular analysis of co-operation providersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; forward spending plans at the international level.

22 - 86 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

Indicator 6. Aid is on budgets which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny Relevant Busan commitment

Measure

Busan commitment to “...strengthen the role of parliaments in the oversight of development processes” (§21a); and also Accra commitment to “facilitate parliamentary oversight by implementing greater transparency in public financial management, including public disclosure of revenues, budgets, expenditures...” (AAA §24).

% of aid scheduled for disbursement that is recorded in the annual budgets approved by the legislatures of developing countries.

Indicator construction

Data source

Numerator:

ODA recorded in annual budget for year n.

Denominator:

ODA scheduled for disbursement in year n by co-operation providers and communicated to partner government. Key definitions and criteria The denominator used in this indicator is the same as that used in the calculation of indicator 5a (annual predictability, above). Annual budget refers to the annual budget of the developing country as it was originally approved by the legislature (see OECD (2010: 16) for detailed definitions).

Data collected at the country level (data taken from existing government budgets and self-reporting by providers of development co-operation).

Aggregation In order to avoid the situation in which under- and overestimates cancel each other out, the ratio is inverted in cases where the numerator is greater than the denominator. This is consistent with the approach taken in OECD (2011).

The reference period is the developing country’s fiscal year.

Note however that when aggregating (global, developing country or co-operation provider), a weighted average is now used. i.e. sum of all numerator values divided by the sum of all denominator values. This replaces the average country ratio used in OECD (2011) and previous work.

Baseline

Proposed target

Not available (data for the denominator are not currently available by partner country fiscal year).

Halve the gap – halve the proportion of aid flows to the government sector not reported on government’s budget(s) (with at least 85% reported on budget). (Baseline year 2010).

For reference, aid captured in budgets in 2010 as a percentage of aid disbursements (PD indicator 3, 78 countries): 41%

Rationale: Paris Declaration target.

Additional information Note that this indicator builds on the broad approach used in indicator 3 of the Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration, while introducing modifications that are intended to make it a better proxy for budget comprehensiveness (and in turn domestic oversight and accountability). This builds on stakeholder feedback and lessons learned. In particular, the denominator is now the amount of aid scheduled for disbursement at the outset of year n, rather than ex-post disbursements. This separates measurement of the extent to which government budgets reflect ex-ante aid estimates (this indicator) from the measurement of the realism of estimates ex-post (now captured by indicator 5a). Note that the method of aggregation has changed since that used in previous Surveys on Monitoring the Paris Declaration (weighting of averages). It is worth emphasising that, as with a number of indicators, performance against this indicator can be attributed to the efforts of both developing country governments and their providers of development co-operation. The aim of the indicator is to offer insight into how – together – they facilitate domestic oversight of aid. It is intended to offer a starting point for broader dialogue on parliamentary oversight of aid, rather than a narrow “scorecard” of either developing country governments’ or co-operation providers’ efforts.

23 - 87 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

Indicator 7. Mutual accountability among co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews Relevant Busan commitment

Measure

Paris commitment to jointly assess mutual progress in implementing aid effectiveness commitments (PD §50). Accra commitment to ensure mutual assessment reviews in place in all countries, with stronger parliamentary scrutiny and citizen engagement (AAA §24b). Busan commitment to encourage participation of all development co-operation actors in these processes (§18d); agree country-led frameworks to monitor progress and promote mutual accountability (§35a).

% of countries that undertake inclusive assessments of progress in implementing commitments.

Indicator construction

Data source

Numerator:

Number of countries considered to have a mutual assessment.

mutual agreed

(Note: this indicator takes the form of an improved version of PD indicator 12).

Country-level data. Self-reporting against established criteria.

Denominator: Total number of countries. Key definitions and criteria

Aggregation

See OECD (2010) for existing criteria. Five criteria are proposed:  Existence of an aid policy or strategy agreed between partner country government and providers of development co-operation (or elements of such a policy / strategy agreed through other instruments).  Existence of country-level effectiveness targets for both partner country government and cooperation providers.  Assessment against these targets undertaken jointly by government and providers of development co-operation in the last two years.  Active involvement of civil society, local government and parliamentarians in such reviews.  Results of such exercises are made public. The result against each criterion is provided. A country is considered to have a mutual assessment in place when at least four of the five criteria are met. Baseline 2010 estimate * = 38% (of 78 countries)

The unit of observation is the individual developing country (score across five dimensions). Global aggregation based on % of countries meeting at least four of the five criteria.

Proposed target All developing countries have assessment reviews in place.

* NB. the criteria proposed in the current methodology have evolved since those used to collect the 2010 baseline. As such this is an estimate only.

inclusive

mutual

Rationale: Paris target.

Additional information This indicator takes the form of a modified version of indicator 12 of the Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration (OECD 2010, 2011). It is worth noting that the 2011 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration already introduced refinements to the criteria and methodology compared with previous years, informed by lessons learned and an emerging body of evidence on national-level mutual accountability (including evidence generated by UNDP and UN DESA under the auspices of the Development Cooperation Forum). It is now proposed that further refinements be introduced to better capture the extent of involvement of stakeholders going beyond governments to include civil society stakeholders and parliamentarians, for example. Rather than offering a simple “yes”/”no” score at the country level, a graduated assessment of the state of progress is offered.

24 - 88 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

Indicator 8. Gender equality and women’s empowerment Note: At its meeting on 21-22 May 2012, the post-Busan Interim Group agreed in principle with the proposal to develop an indicator that quantifies progress in the implementation of the Busan commitment relating to gender equality and women’s empowerment (below). The WP-EFF is invited to endorse the broad elements identified below, which will act as a reference for the Global Partnership secretariat as it works to support the finalisation and field testing of a methodology for this indicator. The detailed definitions and means of measurement for this indicator remain subject to further work of a technical nature being undertaken in collaboration with UN Women and other actors. Relevant Busan commitment

Measure

“[We will] accelerate and deepen efforts to collect, disseminate, harmonise and make full use of data disaggregated by sex to inform policy decisions and guide investments, ensuring in turn that public expenditures are targeted appropriately to benefit both women and men.” (Busan §20a).

Proportion of developing countries with systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment.

Indicator construction

Data source

Numerator: Number of countries that have a system for tracking allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment

Data collected from ministries of finance at country level, drawing on existing data sources wherever possible.

Denominator: Total number of countries

For example, depending on the exact scope and coverage of the indicator, data could be drawn from a UN Women database of countries working on national planning and budgeting (65 countries in 2011), as well as other relevant data sources.

Key definitions and criteria

Aggregation

The proposed definition for systems for tracking allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment is as follows:

For this indicator, the unit of observation is the individual developing country. Global aggregation: sum of or percentage of developing countries.

(further work is needed to define concepts and criteria so as to enable the operationalisation of this indicator) 

A system overseen by ministries of finance that considers gender impact in budget decisions and incorporates measures to mitigate any adverse impact on gender equality and women’s empowerment, and to actively promote advance of gender equality and women’s empowerment. Evidence of this would be proformas for gender impact assessment to accompany bids for funding to Ministry of Finance/ Budget office; and sector gender budget statements accompanying budget documents produced by Ministries of Finance.



A system that marks budget allocations towards gender equality and women’s empowerment policy objectives and results. Evidence of this would be budget classification systems, gender markers etc.

25 - 89 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1 Baseline

Proposed target

Not available. To be established for 2011.

All developing countries have systems that track and make public allocations for gender equality and womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s empowerment. (Timeline to be agreed.)

Additional information It is worth emphasising that the purpose of this indicator is to offer a measure of progress in the implementation of the Busan commitment identified above. This focus on efforts and behaviour is distinct from other existing efforts to monitor gender equality and womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s empowerment at the outcome level (e.g. through the MDG framework and other frameworks). Further work is needed to define this indicator in detail and field test it (where the collection of new data is involved). A final decision on the use of this indicator would then be taken based on the results of such field testing / pilot work. Over the course of consultations, stakeholders expressed a range of views on the applicability of this indicator to different countries. Some suggested that it should be applied to all countries, while others proposed that only developing countries should be assessed against this indicator. This proposal focuses on the latter, in view of the focus of the Busan monitoring framework on the effectiveness of development co-operation. Nevertheless, countries at all stages of development are welcome to share evidence on their efforts in this area and performance against this indicator in view of the interest in advancing mutual learning and the exchange of experiences.

26 - 90 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

Indicator 9a. Quality of developing country PFM systems Relevant Busan commitment

Measure

Paris Declaration commitments to strengthen country systems at the same time as increasing their use (PD §17-30; reaffirmed in Busan §19).

Same as Paris Declaration indicator 2a. This indicator is based on the World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA). It takes the value of one CPIA criterion – indicator 13 – which offers a measure of the quality of a developing country’s budget and financial management system.

Indicator construction

Data source

This indicator takes the form of a score ranging from 1.0 (lowest) to 6.0 (highest), scored in half-point increments (0.5).

World Bank (existing international dataset, published on an annual basis and available for IDA countries).

Key definitions and criteria

Aggregation

The following three dimensions are rated by the World Bank using established criteria:

For this indicator, the unit of observation is the individual developing country.

When aggregating to the global level, the measure used is the percentage of developing countries moving up at least one measure (i.e. 0.5 points) since the baseline year.

a comprehensive and credible budget, linked to policy priorities; effective financial management systems to ensure that the budget is implemented as intended in a controlled and predictable way; and timely and accurate accounting and fiscal reporting, including timely and audited public accounts and effective arrangements for follow up.

All three dimensions are given equal weighting. See World Bank (2010) for the detailed criteria underpinning each dimension. Baseline

Proposed target for 2015

2010 (for countries participating in PD Survey):

Half of developing countries move up at least one measure (i.e. 0.5 points) on the PFM/CPIA scale of performance. (Baseline year: 2010).

CPIA PFM Score Num. of countries %

>=5

4.5

4.0

3.5

<3.0

All

14%

45%

21%

Rationale: Paris Declaration target

16% 100%

Additional information This indicator was previously used in the Paris Declaration monitoring framework (indicator 2a) and the methodology described above remains unchanged from that used in the 2011 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration. As such, an existing time series and baseline are available. Note that as in previous years, data are only available for IDA countries. Stakeholder feedback points to some challenges with this indicator, however a review of potential alternatives suggests that this approach still offers a reasonable means of measurement with regular data (annual) and good coverage of developing countries at this point in time. Where other evidence (for example, recent PEFA assessments; assessments of procurement systems using MAPS) is available, this can be drawn on to support dialogue at the country level and to offer a complementary, more in-depth narrative report of progress and challenges in the strengthening of country systems. It could also be drawn on in efforts to devise alternative methods to monitor global progress in the future.

27 - 91 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

Over the course of consultations, stakeholders also expressed their desire that this indicator â&#x20AC;&#x201C; which focuses quite narrowly on the quality of budget and financial management â&#x20AC;&#x201C; should be complemented with efforts to monitor the effectiveness of developing countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; institutions and systems more broadly, and capacity development efforts. Relevant evidence generated by stakeholders could be drawn on to offer a broader narrative around progress and challenges in this area.

28 - 92 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

Indicator 9b. Use of country PFM and procurement systems Relevant Busan commitment

Measure

Paris Declaration (§21, 26) and Accra (§15) commitments, as reaffirmed in Busan. Busan commitment to “use country systems as the default approach for development co-operation in support of activities managed by the public sector” (§19a).

Note that this indicator combines Paris Declaration indicators 5a (use of country PFM systems) and 5b (use of country procurement systems) to offer a single composite indicator. % of aid disbursements for the government sector using the developing country’s PFM and procurement system (average across use of four components a-d below).

Indicator construction

Data source

Numerator:

Aid flows using country systems (average of a, b ,c and d)

Denominator:

Total aid flows for the government sector.

where: a = ODA disbursed for the government national budget execution procedures; b = ODA disbursed for the government national financial reporting procedures; and c = ODA disbursed for the government national auditing procedures. d = ODA disbursed for the government national procurement systems.

Country-level data (self-reporting development co-operation).

providers

sector using sector using sector using sector using

Key definitions and criteria

Aggregation

See OECD (2010: 21-26) for detailed definitions and criteria.

Developing country, co-operation provider, global: total of numerators divided by total of denominators.

Baseline

Proposed target for 2015

2005 (32 countries): 40% 2010 (78 countries): 49%

Country target depends on score for indicator 9a above (quality of PFM systems):  Reduce the gap by two thirds – a two-thirds reduction in % of aid not using country PFM and procurement systems for countries with a score of >=5 on indicator 9a;  Reduce the gap by one third – a one-third reduction in % of aid not using country PFM and procurement systems for countries with a score between 3.5 and 4.5 on indicator 9a. (Baseline year: 2010). Rationale: based on the logic underpinning the Paris Declaration target (though procurement is now one of the four components of country systems now included in the indicator, rather than being subject to a separate target).

29 - 93 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1 Additional information This indicator draws on two indicators previously used in the Paris Declaration monitoring framework (indicators 5a and 5b) and the definitions and criteria described above remain unchanged from those used in the 2011 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration, even though the formula for calculation has changed to offer an unweighted average of the four components of country systems covering both PFM and procurement. This responds to the emphasis placed by PBIG members on reducing the number of global indicators (in comparison with previous proposals) and offering a simpler headline narrative around each indicator. Data is nevertheless collected on use of each of the four components of country PFM and procurement systems, so these can be used by interested stakeholders in additional analysis on a particular component of country systems. Retaining the components and definitions of the previous PD indicators also means that baseline and historical data are available and a time series can be calculated for this indicator.

30 - 94 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1

Indicator 10. Aid is untied Relevant Busan commitment

Measure

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Pursuant to the Accra Agenda for Action, we will accelerate our efforts to untie aid.â&#x20AC;? (Â§18e).

Same as Paris Declaration indicator 8. % of aid that is fully untied.

Indicator construction Numerator:

Amount of untied aid.

Denominator:

Total aid.

Data source Existing international data source: self-reporting on tying status by providers of development co-operation through the OECD-DAC Creditor Reporting System.

Key definitions and criteria

Aggregation

Note that all types of aid are considered in the calculation of this indicator.

Developing country, co-operation provider, global: total of numerators divided by total of denominators.

For detailed definitions, see OECD (2007). Baseline

Proposed target

2009 (all bilateral ODA): 79%

Continued progress over time. Rationale: Paris target.

Additional information This indicator was previously used in the Paris Declaration monitoring framework (indicator 8) and the methodology described above remains unchanged from that used in the 2011 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration. Note that data are only available for those providers of development co-operation reporting through the DAC CRS. The time lag in data collection and publication may be slightly more pronounced than for some other indicators (e.g. the 2011 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration uses data on the tying status of aid in 2009).

31 - 95 -

DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1 References CIVICUS (2012) Global Index on the Enabling Environment: monitoring global trends in civil societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s operating environment, draft methodological note shared with the post-Busan Interim Group, May 2012. Available online at http://oe.cd/h37dgwj7x9 OECD (2007) Reporting directives for the Creditor Reporting System, 4 September, DCD/DAC(2007)39/FINAL, OECD, Paris. Available online at http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/crsdirectives OECD (2009) OECD Report on Division of Labour: Addressing fragmentation and concentration of aid across countries, OECD, Paris. Available online at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/52/44318319.pdf OECD (2010) 2011 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration: Survey Guidance, version 28 September 2010, OECD, Paris. Available online at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/28/46138662.pdf OECD (2011) Aid Effectiveness 2011: Progress in implementing the Paris Declaration, OECD, Paris. Available online at http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/aid-effectiveness-2011_9789264125780-en World Bank (2001) Comprehensive Development Framework: Implementation Experience in Lowand Middle-Income Countries, April 2001. World Bank (2010) Country Policy and Institutional Assessments: 2010 Assessment Questionnaire, 3 September, Operations Policy and Country Services, World Bank. Available online at http://go.worldbank.org/S2THWI1X60

32 - 96 -

부산 세계개발원조총회 최종결과와 향후과제

[정부]

부산 글로벌 파트너십 공식 출범

외교통상부 개발정책과

- 97 -

주 요 외 교 사 안

제 목 : 부산 글로벌 파트너십 공식 출범 부산 세계개발원조총회 시 합의된 “효과적 개발협력을 위한 부산 파 트너십(Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation)”

이 지난 6.28-29간 파리에서 개최된 OECD 회의에서 공식 출범한 바, 동 파트너십 개요, 출범 의미 및 금후 조치계획은 아래와 같음.

- 99 -

- 100 -

* UN과 OECD 간 공동 사무국이라는 새로운 협력체제 형성

- 101 -

배포처

각 실.국(과.팀) - 주요외교사안 2012. 7. 3.

2등서기관

홍상희

개발정책과장

임정택

개발협력국장

협조자

- 102 -

박은하

부산 세계개발원조총회 최종결과와 향후과제

[정부] KOICA 국제개발협력 2012년 3호

부산 글로벌 파트너십 출범과 우리나라 ODA 정책과제

홍상희

외교통상부 개발정책과 2등 서기관

- 103 -

부산 글로벌 파트너십 출범과 우리나라 ODA 정책과제 홍 상 희

(외교통상부 개발정책과 2등서기관)

목

차

1. 서론 2. 부산 글로벌 파트너십 개요 가. 그간 논의 경과 나. 글로벌 파트너십의 기능과 운영체제 다. 의의 및 평가 3. 국내 이행 방안과 주요 정책과제 가. 글로벌 파트너십 집행위원회 참여 나. 주요 원조효과성/개발효과성 공약 이행 다. 부산총회 Building Blocks 및 자발적 이니셔티브 참여 라. 개도국 현장 중심 개발협력 강화 마. 국내 Multi-stakeholder 개발협력 파트너십 구축 4. 결어

1. 서론

지난 6월말 파리 유엔교육・과학・문화기구(UNESCO) 본부에서 열린 경제협력개발기구 (OECD) 산하 원조효과작업반(Working Party on Aid Effectiveness) 최종 회의에서“효과 적인 개발협력을 위한 부산 파트너십(일명: 글로벌 파트너십)1)” 이 공식 출범하였다.

국제개발협력

- 105 -

이로써 7개월 전 부산 세계개발원조총회(2011.11.29-12.1)에서 3,000여명의 참석자들이 21 세기 개발협력의 새로운 비전으로 제시한 주요 공약을 이행할 수 있는 실질적인 운영체제가 만 들어졌다. 부산총회는 UN 새천년개발목표(MDGs) 달성 시한을 불과 4년 앞두고 개발협력 분야에서 개 최된 최대 규모・최고 권위의 행사로써, 개발도상국의 빈곤퇴치와 지속가능한 발전을 위한 국 제사회의 노력을 새로이 결집하는 전기를 마련한 것으로 평가받고 있다. 부산총회 결과물로 채 택된 글로벌 파트너십이 성공적으로 그 기능을 수행할지 여부는 글로벌 파트너십을 구성하는 모든 개발주체들의 적극적인 참여와 이행 의지에 달려 있다고 하겠다. 이 글에서는 부산총회에서 합의되어 새롭게 출범된 글로벌 파트너십의 의의를 살펴보고, 부산 총회 공약 및 합의사항 이행과 함께 글로벌 파트너십을 국내적으로 내재화하기 위한 우리나라 주요 정책과제와 추진방향을 모색해 보고자 한다.

2. 부산 글로벌 파트너십 개요

가. 그간 논의 경과 부산총회는 향후 글로벌 개발 커뮤니티가 나아갈 방향으로 정부, 국제기구, 시민사회, 의회, 민간 등 모든 개발주체가 참여하는 포괄적인 글로벌 파트너십 구축에 합의하고, 동 파트너십의 구체적인 운영방안을 2012년 6월까지 마련키로 결정했다. 동 합의사항 이행을 위해 OECD 개발원조위원회(DAC) 산하 원조효과작업반의 기능이 6개월 간 연장되었고, 부산총회 결과문서 협상을 담당했던 쉐르파 체제를 확대하여‘포스트 부산 임시 그룹(PBIG: Post-Busan Interim Group)'이 구성2)되었다.

1) 우리는 새롭고 포괄적인 ‘효과적인 개발협력을 위한 글로벌 파트너십’ (Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation)을 구축하여, 정치적 수준에서 약속 이행을 지원하고 책무성을 갖도록 한다. 동 파 트너십은 다양성을 포용하는 열린 플랫폼을 통해 지식의 교환과 주기적으로 진전사항을 검토하는 포럼을 구축한 다. (부산총회 결과문서 제36조 a항) 2) 우리나라는 원조효과작업반 부의장국이자 PBIG 멤버로 post-Busan 후속 논의에 참여

12 한국국제협력단 - 106 -

PBIG 멤버는 전통 공여국, 신흥국, 개도국, 시민사회, 민간 대표 등 총 25명으로 구성되었으 며, 부산총회 이후 총 3차례에 걸쳐 회의를 개최, 글로벌 파트너십의 운영체제와 글로벌 모니터 링 방안에 관한 광범위한 의견을 수렴하였다. 이러한 협의 결과를 반영한 최종 제안서가 지난 6 월 28일부터 29일까지 이틀간 파리 UNESCO 본부에서 열린 원조효과작업반 최종 회의에서 승인되었다. PBIG의 제안서는 모든 원조효과작업반 멤버 및 여타 개발주체들의 기대 수준을 충족시키지 는 못했다. 특히, 시민사회, 아프리카 개도국, 지역기구 등은 글로벌 파트너십 거버넌스 체제에 대한 참여 확대를 요구했지만, 글로벌 파트너십의 효과적 운영을 위해서는 참여 범위의 제한이 불가피하고 참여 범위에 대한 협상을 다시 시작할 경우 부산총회에서 합의된 기한 내 글로벌 파 트너십 출범은 불가하다는 점 등을 감안, PBIG 제안을 그대로 수용했다. 이로써 국제사회의 원 조효과성 논의를 이끌어 왔던 OECD 원조효과작업반과 산하 조직의 모든 활동이 종료되고, 이 를 대체하는 새로운 개발협력 거버넌스 체제인 글로벌 파트너십이 공식 출범했다.

나. 글로벌 파트너십의 기능과 운영체제 글로벌 파트너십의 기능은 크게 네 가지다. 우선, 기존 원조효과성 논의가 기술적인 면에 치 우친 한계를 고려, 부산총회에서 합의된 효과적인 개발협력을 위한 정치적 모멘텀을 강화해 나 가는 것이다. 또한, 부산총회 합의사항 이행을 위한 책임성을 확보하고, 다양한 개발주체 간 지 식 공유와 경험 공유를 활성화하며, 개도국 현장에서의 부산총회 합의사항 이행을 지원하는 역 할을 담당한다. 글로벌 파트너십 운영체제는, i) 최고 의사결정을 담당하는 장관급 회의, ii) 글로벌 파트너십 의 실제 운영을 담당하는 집행위원회, iii) 사무국 기능을 수행하는 OECD-UNDP 공동 지원팀 으로 구성되며, 부산총회 주요 합의사항을 점검하기 위한 글로벌 모니터링 체제가 도입된다. (1) 장관급 회의(Ministerial Meeting) 장관급 회의는 부산총회 합의사항 이행 점검을 주목적으로 하되, post-MDGs 등 새롭게 부 상하는 개발 이슈를 논의하는 고위급 정책대화의 장으로써, 18-24개월을 주기로 UN, OECD, 다자개발은행 등 여타 고위급 개발회의와 연계 개최 등을 포함하여 신축적으로 운영하기로 하 였다. 동 장관급 회의에는 부산총회 결과문서를 승인한 국가와 기관은 모두 참여할 수 있다.

국제개발협력

- 107 -

(2) 집행위원회(Steering Committee) 장관급 회의의 의제 준비 등 글로벌 파트너십의 실질운영은 18명으로 구성된 집행위원회가 담당한다. 집행위원회는 공여국, 신흥국, 수원국의 장관급 공동의장 3명과 공여국, 신흥국, 수 원국, 의회, 시민사회, 민간, 다자개발은행, UNDP, OECD 출신 15명의 집행위원으로 구성된 다. 우리나라는 부산 파트너십 구축과정에서의 기여를 인정받아 영국(공동의장), EU, 미국과 더 불어 공여국 대표로 집행위원회에 참여할 예정이다. (3) OECD-UNDP 공동 지원팀(Joint Support Team) 부산총회가 지향하는“global light, country focused" 이행체제를 효과적으로 지원하기 위 한 OECD-UNDP 공동 지원팀(Joint Support Team)은 기존 OECD와 UNDP의 조직과 인력 을 활용하여 운영될 계획이다. OECD는 글로벌 모니터링과 공여국에 대한 이행 점검을, UNDP 는 현장 중심의 부산총회 합의사항 이행을 지원함으로써 각 기관의 비교우위를 바탕으로 한 협 력체제가 구축될 예정이다. (4) 글로벌 모니터링 지표(Busan Global Monitoring Indicators) 부산총회에서 합의된 주요 원조효과성 및 개발효과성 공약의 이행을 점검하기 위하여 10개의 글로벌 모니터링 지표가 선정되었다. 수원국 시스템 활용(지표 9), 비구속화(지표 10), 원조 예 측성(지표 5), 투명성(지표 4) 등 파리지표를 유지 또는 심화, 발전시킨 것도 일부 있지만, 시민 사회(지표 2), 민간분야(지표 3), 양성평등(지표 8) 등은 새롭게 추가된 지표들이다. 10개 지표 중 시민사회와 민간분야 관련 지표는 추가적인 협의가 필요한 상황이며, 최종 지표의 정의와 측 정 방법 등은 기술적 검토를 거쳐 금년 말까지 확정키로 하였다. 또한, 부산 글로벌 모니터링 체제는 부산총회에서 합의된 공약 중 글로벌 차원에서 모니터링 할 필요성이 있는 분야를 중심으로 선정되었으며, 모니터링 지표에서 제외된 공약들은 개도국 국별 모니터링 및 장관급 회의에서 이행 여부를 점검할 수 있다. 부산 글로벌 모니터링은 자발 적인 참여를 원칙으로 하며, 특히 남남협력국에 대해서는 글로벌 파트너십 참여와 글로벌 모니 터링 참여를 분리함으로써 글로벌 모니터링에 참여하지 않더라도 글로벌 파트너십의 정책대화 에 참여할 수 있는 정책적 융통성을 부여했다.

14 한국국제협력단 - 108 -

<표 1> 부산 글로벌 모니터링 지표(안)

부산 글로벌 지표

1. 수원국 우선순위 반영

지표 설명

부산 결과문서 관련조항

목표치(2015년)

수원국의 우선순위를 반영 모든 공여주체가 수원국 한 결과 프레임워크 활용 결과 프레임워크 활용 정도

18(a)

CIVICUS 시민사회 환경 지 2.시민사회의 참여와 기여 수(Enabling environment 지속적 향상 index) 활용

22(a)

3. 민간분야의 역량강화

추후 확정

32(a)

4. 개발협력 정보 공개

공통의 공개 표준 활용 정도 모든 공여주체가 활용

5. 예측 가능성

개발협력의 예측 가능성 제고

(a) 단기 예측성

해당 년도 계획된 원조의 집행 비율 집행되지 않은 비율 50% 감소

(b) 중기 예측성

중기 집행계획에 포한된 원조 비율

포함되지 않은 비율 50% 감소

6. 원조의 예산화

개도국 의회 승인을 받은 연간 예산에서 원조 비율 (2010년 기준)

정부에 지원되는 개발원조 중 정부 예산에 보고되지 않은 비율 50% 감소

21(a)

7. 상호 책임성

부산총회 합의사항 이행을 위한 포괄적인 상호평가 검 토 참여

모든 개도국에서 도입

35(a)

8. 양성평등과 여성 역량 강화

양성평등과 여성의 역량강 화를 위한 공공예산 배정과 이를 트래킹하는 시스템을 가진 국가의 비율(%)

모든 개도국에서 도입

20(a)

개도국 50% 이상에서 PFM/CPIA 점수 최소 1단 계 상승

19(a)

지속적 향상

23(c) 24(a)

9. 수원국 시스템 활용 (a)개도국 공공재정관리 시스템(PMF)의 질적 수준

효과적인 제도 구축을 위한 개도국 시스템 강화 및 활 용(2010년 기준)

(b)수원국 PMF 및 조달 시스템 활용 10. 비구속화

시스템을 사용하지 않는 비 율 감축 비구속성 원조 비율(%) (2010년 기준)

지속적 향상

18(e)

국제개발협력

- 109 -

다. 의의 및 평가 부산총회는 로마, 파리, 아크라로 이어진 원조효과성 논의를 마무리하는 회의에 그치지 않고 실제로 개도국의 발전을 가져올 수 있는 요인과 임팩트에 중점을 둔 개발효과성(development effectiveness)이라는 새로운 화두를 제시했다. 비록 개발효과성이라는 개념이 명시적으로 결 과문서에 포함되지는 않았으나, 기존 공적개발원조(ODA: Official Development Assistance) 중심의 논의를 넘어 남남협력, 민간 개발활동 등 비원조(non-aid) 분야와 다양한 개발주체의 역할과 기여를 인정하면서 과거 공여국-수원국의 수직적 관계가 아닌 다양한 개발 주체가 수평적으로 참여하는 새로운 글로벌 개발 거버넌스 체제다. 부산총회에서 합의되어 새 롭게 출범된 글로벌 파트너십은 여타 글로벌 개발 프로세스와는 차별화된 특징과 의의를 갖고 있다. 첫째, 개발협력 역사상 최초로 다양한 개발주체가 참여하는 ” 다주체(multi-stakeholder) “ 운영체제를 구축했다는 점이다. UN, G20, 다자개발기구 중심의 개발협력 논의는 모두 회원국 정부를 중심으로 운영되지만 글로벌 파트너십은 정부뿐만 아니라 국제기구, 비정부 기관(의회, 민간, 시민사회) 등 모든 개발 주체가 옵서버가 아닌 동등한 파트너로 글로벌 파트너십의 실질 운영에 참여하게 된다. 둘째, 기존 선진국(OECD) 주도의 효과성(effectiveness) 논의를 종료한다는 점이다. 부산총 회는 개도국 스스로가 개발의 주인이 되어야 한다는 점을 재확인하였고, 수원국 현장 중심의 포 스트 부산 이행체제를 도입했다. 또한, 글로벌 파트너십의 실질적인 운영을 담당하는 집행위원 회의 가장 많은 자리(18명중 6명)를 수원국에게 배분함으로써 수원국의 목소리와 입장이 충분 히 반영될 수 있는 제도적 기반을 마련했다. 셋째, 글로벌 파트너십은 느슨한(loose) 형태로 운영되지만 지속적으로 진화한다는 점이다. 이는 신흥국 등 다양한 개발주체의 참여를 이끌어내기 위한 정치적 타협과 협상의 산물이기도 하다. 다양한 개발주체의 참여가 부산총회의 공약 이행 의지를 약화시키거나 국제사회의 규범 을 희석시키는 방향으로 해석되는 것은 바람직하지 않다. 글로벌 파트너십은 오늘날 중요한 개 발 파트너로 급부상한 신흥국, 민간 주체들이 효과적인 개발협력이라는 공통의 목표를 달성하 기 위한 고위급 정책 대화에 참여할 수 있는 제도화된(formalized) 공간을 마련했다는 점에서 의의가 크다.

16 한국국제협력단 - 110 -

3. 국내 이행 방안과 주요 정책과제 부산총회 이후 EU, 영국, 가나, 베트남, 잠비아 등 다수 국가들은 부산총회 합의사항을 이행 하기 위한 자체 이행계획을 수립했거나 수립 중에 있다. 우리나라는 2010년 OECD DAC에 가 입한 신규 회원국으로서 여타 선진국과 동일한 수준의 선진 원조 규범과 기법을 활용하는데 한 계가 있는 것이 사실이다. 하지만, 부산총회 개최국으로서 새로운 글로벌 파트너십의 성공적인 운영을 지원하고, 부산총회 합의사항과 공약을 이행해 나가는 것은 도의적인 책임뿐만 아니라 우리 ODA 정책 및 집행을 선진화하는데도 기여할 것이다.

가. 글로벌 파트너십 집행위원회 참여 우리나라는 향후 2년간 글로벌 파트너십의 실질사항을 담당하는 집행위원회 위원으로 참여하 여 부산총회 개최국으로서의 리더십과 기여를 지속해 나갈 계획이다. 무엇보다 새로운 글로벌 파트너십의 운영의 성패는 정치적인 모멘텀 유지와 모든 개발주체의 적극적인 참여에 달려 있 다. 이러한 측면에서 최근 글로벌 파트너십을 이끌어 갈 공여국, 수원국, 신흥국 공동의장으로 영국, 나이지리아, 인도네시아 장관급 인사가 각각 선임된 것은 환영할 만한 일이다. 현재 주요 신흥국 중 글로벌 파트너십에 참여하겠다고 공식 입장을 표명한 국가는 인도네시 아, 멕시코, 남아공 정도다. 중국과 인도는 부산총회와 후속 논의에 참여해 왔지만 아직까지 글 로벌 파트너십의 정식 멤버로 참여하는데 신중한 입장을 보이고 있다. 하지만, 글로벌 파트너십 이 진화하고, 공여국으로서의 그들의 역량이 강화되면 부산총회 공약 이행에 점진적으로 동참 하겠다는 의사를 표명했다. 우리나라는 부산총회 결과문서 협상 및 후속논의 과정에서 중국, 인도, 브라질 등 신흥국의 참여를 이끌어 내고, 전통 공여국과 신흥국 간 가교 역할을 훌륭히 수행한 경험을 갖고 있다. 이 러한 경험을 살려, 글로벌 파트너십이‘부산 정신’ 을 계승하여 건설적인 방향으로 발전해 나갈 수 있도록 외교력을 발휘할 필요가 있다.

나. 주요 원조효과성/개발효과성 공약 이행 부산총회에서는 파리/아크라 원조효과성의 핵심 공약을 재확인한 바 있다. 특히, 수원국 시스템 활용, 원조 예측성 강화, 투명성 제고, 원조의 비구속화 관련 공약은 글로벌 모니터링 지표로도 포함되면서 공여국들의 이행 의무가 더욱 강화되었다고 볼 수 있다.

국제개발협력

- 111 -

부산총회의 원조효과성 공약을 이행하기 위해서는 개별 공약 이행에 앞서 우리 ODA 정책과 집행체제의 전반적인 변화가 필요하다. 특히, 기존 프로젝트 중심의 원조 관행 하에서는 부산총 회에서 합의된 공약들을 충실히 이행해 나가는데 한계가 있을 수밖에 없다. 이를 해결하기 위해 서는 프로그램 기반 접근(program-based approach)의 점진적 도입 등 우리 ODA 집행체제 에 대한 보다 체계적이고, 종합적인 정책 검토가 병행되어야 할 것이다. 또한, 부산총회 합의사 항을 기존 중・단기 ODA 전략 및 예산계획에 반영하는 작업이 필요하다. 통합국별협력전략 (CPS)과 글로벌 파트너십 연계를 통한 수원국 개별 상황에 맞는 이행방안도 필요하다. 한편, 상대적으로 구체화되어 있는 원조효과성 공약과 달리 효과적인 개발협력(또는 개발효과 성) 관련 공약들은 구체적인 목표치가 합의되어 있지는 않지만 국제사회가 지향하는 정책방향 을 제시하고 있다. 우리나라가 주도적으로 의제화한 남남/삼각협력, 민간의 역할, 효과적인 제 도 관련 합의사항 이행을 위한 구체화된 후속조치가 마련되어야 할 것이다. 부산총회 합의사항 을 효과적으로 이행하기 위해서는 주요 공여국, 국제기구와의 전략적인 파트너십을 구축하는 것도 유용한 전략이 될 수 있을 것이다.

다. 부산총회 빌딩블록(Building Blocks) 및 자발적 이니셔티브 참여 부산총회에서는 공식적인 결과문서 외에도 부산총회 결과문서 이행을 위해 관심 있는 국가, 기관들이 리더십을 갖고 자발적으로 추진하는 8개의 빌딩블록(Building Blocks)3)과 양성평등 관련 글로벌 이니셔티브들이 있다. 빌딩블록과 자발적 이니셔티브는 글로벌 파트너십과 공식적 으로 연계되어 있지는 않지만, 부산 합의사항의 실질적인 진전과 성과를 가져 올 수 있는 영역 이다. 우리나라가 참여하고 있는 효과적인 제도, 양성평등, 민간분야 관련 빌딩블록 및 자발적 이니 셔티브에 효율적으로 참여하기 위해서는 국내 전문성을 가진 관계부처, 기관과의 협력 관계 구 축이 중요하다.

라. 개도국 현장 중심의 개발협력 강화 부산총회 이후 지금까지의 논의는 글로벌 레벨의 파트너십 구축에 초점이 맞추어져 왔다. 그

3) 분쟁 및 취약국가, 남남 및 삼각협력, 민간부문, 기후변화 재원, 투명성, 효과적 제도와 정책, 결과와 상호 책무성, 원조 분절화 감소

18 한국국제협력단 - 112 -

러나 앞으로는 부산총회에서 지향하는 개도국 현장 중심의 이행을 위해 개별 개도국 현장에서 의 글로벌 파트너십 또는“country compact”구축 논의가 본격화될 전망이다. 현재 베트남, 가나 등지에서 수원국 주도의 글로벌 파트너십 구축 노력이 진행 중이다. 우리나라는 이러한 노 력을 적극 지원하고 동참할 필요가 있으며, 이를 위해 해당 개도국에서 이루어지고 있는 우리 개발협력 활동을 종합적으로 파악하고 있는 재외공관 중심의 지원 체제를 제도화할 필요가 있 다.

마. 국내 multi-stakeholder 개발협력 파트너십 구축 부산총회 합의사항을 효율적으로 이행하기 위해서는 국내 차원의 다주체(multistakeholder) 파트너십 구축이 필요하며, 특히, 시민사회나 민간기업 등 민간분야 개발주체의 자발적인 참여와 적극적 기여를 유도할 수 있는 제도적 틀과 인센티브 마련이 필요하다. 초기 이행 단계에서는 정보공유 및 정책대화를 통한 상호 인식 제고와 파트너십의 기반을 형성하고, 점차적으로 협력 범위를 확대해 나가는 전략이 필요할 것으로 보인다.

4. 결어 부산총회에서 합의된 글로벌 파트너십은 국제개발협력의 새로운 출발점이자 패러다임 전환을 의미한다. 이처럼 많은 변화를 가져올 글로벌 파트너십은 국제사회와 부산총회 개최국인 우리 나라에게 새로운 기회와 도전과제를 안겨주었다. 국제사회는 모든 개발주체가 동등한 파트너로 참여하는 포괄적인 파트너십을 출범시킴으로써 국제개발협력 역사의 새로운 장을 열었다. 그만큼 글로벌 파트너십에 대한 기대 또한 높다. 하 지만 다양한 개발주체가 참여한다는 것 자체가 도전과제로도 인식되고 있다. 특히, 주요 신흥국 의 글로벌 파트너십 참여가 담보되지 않은 상황에서 신흥국을 끌어들이기 위해 어렵게 구축해 온 국제개발협력 규범이 와해될 수 있다는 우려도 제기되고 있다. 하지만, 글로벌 파트너십은 이제 막 시작한 단계이므로 부정적인 선입견을 갖고 바라보는 것은 바람직하지 않고, 부산총회 에서 확인된 정치적 의지와 건설적인 타협 정신이 계속 발휘된다면 새로운 개발협력 패러다임 으로 자리매김할 것으로 믿는다. 부산총회 개최국으로서 우리나라가 풀어 나가야 할 과제도 많다. 새로운 글로벌 파트너십 구

국제개발협력

- 113 -

축 과정에 주도적으로 참여하면서 개발협력 분야에서 우리나라의 국제적 위상은 높아졌지만, 우리 ODA 정책이나 제도, 집행체제는 개선해야 할 부분이 많이 남아 있다. 앞으로 진행될 부산 총회 공약과 합의사항 이행을 우리 ODA를 한 단계 업그레이드하고 선진화하는 기회로 삼아야 할 것이다. 우리나라의 산파 역할을 통해 출범된 글로벌 파트너십이 유명무실한 정치 공약이 아 닌 개도국들에게 실질적인 발전을 가져오는 매개체 역할을 할 수 있도록 정부와 민간, 시민사 회, 학계 모두가 지혜와 힘을 모아가야 할 때다.

20 한국국제협력단 - 114 -

참고문헌

1. 국내문헌

박은하 (2011),“부산 세계개발원조총회 주요 성과 및 향후 과제”국제개발협력 No. 4, 한국국제협력단. 임소진 (2012),“원조효과성에서 개발효과성으로,”국제개발협력 No.2, 한국국제협력단.

2. 국외문헌

Homi Kharas (2011),“Coming Together: How a New Global Partnership on Development Cooperation was Forged at the Busan High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Real Insisuto Elcano. Mark Tran (2012),“Andrew Mitchell given role in post-Busan aid effectiveness panel," The Guardian. Mark Tran (2012),“New aid effectiveness indicators agreed at post-Busan meeting," The Guardian.

Post Busan Interim Group (2012), Proposed Indicators, Targets and Process for Global Monitoring of the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1. Post Busan Interim Group (2012), Proposed Mandate for the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)7/REV1.

국제개발협력

- 115 -

부산 세계개발원조총회 최종결과와 향후과제

[정부] KOICA 국제개발협력 2012년 3호

부산 글로벌 파트너십과 한국 ODA의 전략적 이행방안

임소진

KOICA ODA연구실 상임 연구원

- 117 -

부산 글로벌 파트너십과 한국 ODA의 전략적 이행방안 임 소 진

(KOICA ODA연구실 상임연구원)

목

차

1. 서론 2. 부산 글로벌 파트너십의 이해 3. 공여국의 파리선언 이행을 위한 행동방안 및 전략분석 3.1. 스웨덴 3.2. 영국 3.3. 호주 4. 한국의 부산 글로벌 파트너십 이행을 위한 시사점

1. 서론

2011년 국제사회는 2005년 파리선언 및 2008년 아크라행동강령의 이행정도를 평가하고 원 조를 넘어선 개발협력의 효과성을 제고하기 위한 부산총회를 개최하였다. 이후 국제 개발협력 대표들은 세 차례에 걸친 Post-Busan 임시그룹(Post-Busan Interim Group) 회의에서 부 산 글로벌 파트너십(이후, 부산파트너십) 지표를 개발하였고, 그 결과를 2012년 6월 OECD DAC 원조효과작업반 회의에서 합의하였다. 그러나 부산파트너십 지표의 일부는 명확한 정의 및 이행 측정방법이 확정되지 않고, Post-Busan 체제 운영을 담당한 집행위원회를 중심으로 2012년 12월까지 개발하도록 합의되었다.

22 한국국제협력단 - 119 -

그러나 부산파트너십의 공여국에 해당하는 지표의 대부분은 파리선언의 지표 이행방법을 적 용하여 개발되었기 때문에, 각 공여국은 부산파트너십 이행을 위한 전략적 방안을 개발하여야 할 시점이다. 한국 역시 예외는 아닐 것이다. 따라서 본 연구는 선진공여국의 파리선언 행동방 안(action plan) 또는 이행 전략의 분석을 통하여 한국 ODA의 부산파트너십 이행을 위한 전략 적 방안 마련을 위한 시사점을 도출하고자 한다. 본 연구는 우선 다음 장에서 금년 6월에 합의된 부산파트너십의 이행체제와 지표에 대해 간단 히 살펴보고, 제3장에서 영국과 스웨덴, 그리고 호주의 사례를 중심으로 부산파트너십의 효과 적 이행을 위한 타 공여국의 파리선언 행동방안 및 이행전략에 대해 분석할 것이다. 이를 바탕 으로 본 연구는 제4장에서 향후 한국 ODA의 부산파트너십 이행을 위한 전략적 이행방안에 대 해 논의하면서 연구를 마무리 하고자 한다.

2. 부산 글로벌 파트너십의 이해

2012년 상반기 세 차례에 걸쳐 이루어진 PBIG 회의에서 국제사회는 부산파트너십 지표의 개 발과 함께 향후 글로벌 파트너십 거버넌스에 대해서도 논의하였다. 국제사회는 특히 OECD와 UNDP가 공동으로 집행위원회(Steering Committee)의 실질적 운영을 담당하도록 하고, 총 18명의 위원회 대표를 선정하도록 하였다. 이 중 공동의장은 장관급으로, 그 외 집행위원회 구 성원은 해당국가의 고위급 인사로 구성하도록 논의하였다 (OECD, 2012a & 2012c). 그러나 원 조효과작업반 회의에서 합의된 글로벌 파트너십 집행위원회 역시 부산파트너십 지표와 마찬가 지로 모든 구성원이 확정된 것은 아니며, 이는 2012년 7월까지 합의하도록 하였다. 현재까지 확정된 부산파트너십 집행위원회의 구성원은 표1과 같다. <표 1> 부산 글로벌 파트너십 집행위원회 (2012년 7월초 기준) 공동의장 1인 1인 1인

개발협력 수원국 •미정 개발협력 수원국 겸 공여국 (신흥공여국) •미정 개발협력 공여국 •Andrew Mitchell, 영국 국제개발부장관

국제개발협력

- 120 -

집행위원회 구성원 개발협력 수원국 대표, 이 중 1인은 g7+ 대표로 선정 5인

•g7+ 대표 동티모르 •그 외 4인 미정

1인

개발협력 수원국 겸 공여국 (신흥공여국) 대표 •미정 개발협력 공여국 대표

3인

•Gustavo Martin Prada, EU 대표 •Donald Steinberg, USAID 대표 •박은하, 한국외교부 개발협력국장

1인 1인

민간부문 대표 •미정 (BIAC 중심)1) 의회 대표 •Martin Chungong, IPU 국장2) 시민사회 대표

1인

•Better Aid 공동의장 2명 (Antonio Tujan, Myara CoCo) 중 1인 예정, 이후 개 발효과성을 위한 시민사회 파트너십(CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness, CPDE) 정식 출범시 정해질 새로운 대표로 대체 예정 (10월)

1인 1인 1인

다자개발은행 대표 •Sophie Sirtaine, 세계은행 국장 UNDP/UNDG 대표 •Sigrid Kaag, UNDP 사무차장보 OECD/DAC 대표 •Brian Atwood, OECD DAC 의장

출처 : 저자재구성 / 참고문헌 : OECD, 2012d

위와 같은 집행위원회는 OECD DAC의 원조효과작업반의 현재까지의 업무를 물려받아, 향후 부산파트너십 지표의 후속 개발과 이행현황 모니터링을 담당하게 될 것이다. 본 연구는 이번 원 조효과작업반에서 합의된 부산파트너십의 10개 지표를 표2와 같이 정리하였다.

1) BIAC : Business Industry and Advisory Committee, OECD 경제산업자문위원회 2) IPU : Inter-Parliamentary Union, 국제의원연맹

24 한국국제협력단 - 121 -

<표 2> 부산 글로벌 파트너십 지표 지표 1. 개도국 우선사항을 충족하는 결과중심의 협력 ■

개도국 결과프레임워크 : 결과시스템과 관련 모니터링 및 평가(Monitoring and Evaluation, M&E) 시스템에 대한 개도국의 접근법 •성과(performance)와 개발결과 달성여부(achievement)에 초점 •합의된 목표와 산출물 지표 및 성과지표, 그리고 그 지표들의 이행 향상정도를 측정할 수 있는 기준점과 목표치 설정이 포함되어야 함.

지표정의

•국가개발전략, 분야계획, 그리고 예산지원 성과(performance) 매트릭스와 같은 기타 프레임워크에 명시되어야 함. •위의 프레임워크들은 국가 단독 개발이 아닌 이해관계자들과의 포괄적 대화 및 참여적 과정에 의해 개발되어야 함. 평가방법

■

개도국 결과프레임워크를 사용하는 공여국 비율 - 개발중 분자 개도국 결과프레임워크를 사용하는 공여국의 수

측정방법

분모 전체 공여국의 수

지표 2. 개발활동의 참여와 기여를 최대화하는 환경에서의 시민사회 운영 지표정의 평가방법 측정방법

■

개발 중

■

CIVICUS가 개발한 가능한 환경 지표(Enabling Environment Index)를 중심으로 평가방법 개발 중

■

개발 중

지표 3. 개발을 위한 민간부문의 참여와 기대 지표정의

■

수원국에서의 민간기업과 정부의 파트너십을 중심으로 개발 중

평가방법

■

개발 중

측정방법

■

개발 중

지표 4. 투명성 : 개발협력에 관한 정보 공개 지표정의 평가방법 측정방법

■

공통표준(common standard)과 함께 개발 중

■

평가방법 개발 중 •공여국의 공통표준 이행 서술을 통한 정성적 평가 고려

■

공통표준 이행여부 서술 - 개발중

지표 5a. 개발협력 예측성 (1년) 지표정의

■

파리선언 지표 7 정의 그대로 적용

평가방법

■

공여국 집행예정액 중 집행된 원조금액 비율

측정방법

분자 공여국이 n년도에 집행한 보고된 원조금액 분모 공여국이 n년도에 집행하고자 계획한 원조금액

국제개발협력

- 122 -

지표 5b. 개발협력 예측성 (중기) ■

개도국은 각각의 공여국에 대해 향후 3년간의 지출계획 가능여부 결정 •만약 가능한 경우 그 계획은 일정 기준을 만족하여야 함.

지표정의

•기준은 현지시험 과정을 통해 확정될 예정 평가방법

■

향후 지출계획 그리고/또는 향후 최소 3년간 이행계획에 따른 예상 원조금액

■

한 개도국 내 단일한 공여국 별 다음의 수식으로 계산 •측정치 t년도 = 평균치 (at+1, at+2 , at+3) •at+n은 t+n년도를 다루고 있는 향후 지출계획의 t년도 말의 가능성에 따른 2진 수의 값을 나타냄. 만약 계획이 있는 경우에 1, 계획이 없는 경우에 0으로 계산됨.

측정방법

•정부부문에 대한 원조에 적용 지표 6. 의회의 정밀검토에 따른 정부의 원조 예산 지표정의

■

연간예산이란 개도국의 연간예산을 의미

•1년 단위는 개도국의 회계연도를 의미 평가방법 ■ 개도국 입법기관에 의해 승인된 연간예산에 기록된 집행예정 원조 비율 분자 n년도 연간예산에 기록된 원조금액

측정방법

분모 공여국이 n년도에 집행하고자 계획한 원조금액

지표 7. 포괄적 검토에 의한 개발협력 주체간 상호책무성 강화 지표정의 평가방법

■

파리선언 지표 12 정의 그대로 적용

■

합의된 공약 이행 향상정도를 포괄적이고 상호적으로 평가하는 개도국의 비율 •파리선언 지표 12 평가방법의 개선된 적용 분자 상호평가(mutual assessment) 보유 개도국 수

측정방법

분모 전체 개도국 수

지표 8. 양성평등과 여성지위향상 지표정의 평가방법

■

개발 중

■

양성평등과 여성지위향상을 위한 공공배분 트래킹시스템 보유 개도국 비율 개발 중 분자 양성평등과 여성지위향상을 위한 재원배분 트래킹시스템 보유 개도국 수

측정방법

분모 전체 개도국 수

지표 9a. 개도국 공공재정(PFM) 시스템의 질 ■

세계은행 국가정책 및 제도평가 (Country Policy and Institutional Assessment, 이후 CPIA) 지표 13 정의 적용

평가방법

■

파리선언 지표 2a 그대로 적용

측정방법

■

CPIA

지표정의

26 한국국제협력단 - 123 -

지표 9b. 개도국 PFM 시스템 및 공공조달시스템 이용 파리선언 지표 5a와 5b 정의 그대로 적용 ■ 파리선언 지표 5a와 5b를 통합하여 적용

지표정의

■

평가방법

■

개도국 PFM 시스템과 공공조달시스템을 이용하여 개도국 정부부문에 대해 집행된 원조금액 비율 분자 개도국 시스템을 이용한 원조금액

측정방법

분모 개도국 정부부문에 대해 집행된 총 원조금액

지표 10. 원조비구속성 지표정의

■

파리선언 지표 8 정의 그대로 적용

평가방법

■

파리선언 지표 8 정의 그대로 적용

측정방법

분자 비구속화 원조금액 분모 총 원조금액

출처 : 저자작성 / 참고문헌 : OECD, 2012b

위에서 볼 수 있는 바와 같이, 지표 1, 4, 5a, 5b, 9b, 10은 공여국 중심의 지표이며, 이 중 지 표 5a, 9b, 10은 파리선언 지표의 정의 및 모니터링 방법을 그대로 적용하고 있다. 지표 1과 4 는 아직 개발중에 있다. 그러나 부산파트너십 지표는 서로 유기적으로 연관되어 있고, 개도국 중심의 지표라 하더라도 공여국의 지원이 함께 이루어져야 하는 특징을 가지고 있다. 또한 부산 파트너십은 파리선언과는 다르게 일정 기간을 정해놓고 모니터링을 하는 체제가 아니라, 1년 6 개월마다 열리는 장관급 회의에서 이행성과에 대한 데이터가 준비된 국가별로 보고(rollingbased)를 할 수 있도록 하였다 (OECD, 2012a). 부산파트너십의 모니터링 체제는 수원국별 자 료를 수집하는 것이 아니며, 글로벌 차원에서 수집가능한 데이터를 중심으로 평가를 하도록 개 발되었다.

3. 공여국의 파리선언 이행을 위한 행동방안 및 전략분석 공여국의 파리선언 이행 결과에 영향을 주는 요소로는 공여국의 원조규모, 원조 담당인력의 규모 및 역량, 정부의 파리선언 이행을 위한 정치적 의지 및 공약, 전정부적 정책일관성, 그리고 파리선언 이행을 위한 행동방안(action plan) 및 전략 등이 있다 (Lim, 2011). 이 중 파리선언 이행을 위한 행동방안과 전략에 대해 살펴보면, 예를 들어, 스웨덴은 파리선언 이후 2006년과 2009년 두 차례의‘원조효과성 향상을 위한 Sida 행동방안’ 을 수립하였고 (Sida, 2006 &

국제개발협력

- 124 -

2009), 영국은 2010년까지 일관성있게 이용할 수 있는‘파리선언 이행을 위한 DFID 행동방안' 을 개발하였다 (DFID, 2006). 반면, 호주는 파리선언을 위한 별도의 행동방안은 마련하지 않았 으나, 대신 파리선언 이행정도를 지속적으로 평가하여 파리선언 목표 달성을 위해 필요한 변화 를 가져올 수 있는 전략을 수립하였다 (AusAID, 2010). 그러나 한국의 경우, 파리선언 이행을 위한 행동방안(action plan) 및 전략이 모두 미흡하였다. <도표 1> 영국, 스웨덴, 호주, 한국의 파리선언 이행결과3)

출처 : 저자작성 / 참고문헌 : OECD, 2011

위의 도표 1에서 볼 수 있듯이, 파리선언 이행을 위한 별도의 행동방안이 마련되었던 영국과 스웨덴은 호주와 한국에 비해 좋은 이행결과를 보여주었으며, 행동방안은 수립하지 않았더라도 지속적인 이행과정의 평가를 통한 변화를 전략으로 세운 호주의 경우도 비교적 좋은 결과를 보 여주고 있다. 그러나 행동방안과 전략이 모두 부재하였던 한국의 경우 현저히 낮은 결과를 나타 내고 있는 것을 알 수 있다. 따라서 한국은 향후 부산파트너십의 효과적 이행을 위해 전략적 이 행방안을 수립할 필요가 있을 것이다. 따라서 본 연구는 스웨덴의 원조효과성 제고를 위한 2006년과 2009년 행동방안과 영국의 파리선언 이행방안, 그리고 호주의 파리선언 이행을 위한 전략을 다음과 같이 분석하고자 한다.

3) 파리선언 지표의 대부분은 비율(%)로 달성정도를 측정하고, 지표 6만이 예외적으로 평행적수행조직(PIU)의 개수를 측정하여 보고하도록 되어있다. 따라서 도표 1에서는 지표 6을 제외한 비율(%)로 평가되는 지표들만을 비교하여 제시하였다.

28 한국국제협력단 - 125 -

3.1. 스웨덴 ▣ 2006년 행동방안 스웨덴 정부의 원조효과성 제고 행동방안은 스웨덴의 파리선언에 대한 공약 이행을 보장하기 위한 목적으로 개발되었다. 스웨덴 정부의 원조효과성 제고를 위한 행동방안은 파리선언 이행 에 대한 Sida의 구체적 행동전략을 구성하고, Sida의 2005년 이전 주요 원조정책 문서에 제시 된 행동방안을 보완하기 위해 작성되었다. 다시 말하면, 스웨덴의 2006년 행동방안은 2003년 에 작성된‘원조조화 계획(harmonisation plan)’ 을 대체하고, 2005년 합의된 파리선언의 5대 원칙을 이행할 수 있도록 개발되었다. 이 행동방안은 2006년을 시작으로 하여 2008년 아크라 고위급 회담 이전까지 해당하는 파리선언 이행 행동방안으로 설계되었다. 스웨덴은 이미 2006 년 행동방안에서 취약국에 대한 차별적 지원전략을 세워야 함을 피력하고 있다. 스웨덴 정부는 원조효과성 및 파리선언 이행 행동방안이 다음과 같은 주요 정부 원조정책을 기본으로 하여 개발되었다는 것을 밝히고 있다. • ‘책임의 공유’ 에 관한 정부안 (Government Bill)4) •2005년 4월 14일의 국무장관과 Sida 이사장의 공동합의문 (joint letter) •예산안 (Budget Bill)5) •협력전략을 위한 새로운 가이드라인6) 스웨덴은 위와 같은 정부문서 뿐 아니라 Sida 내 기본 정책문서와 OECD DAC, EU, 북유럽 연합체(Nordic+)의 원조정책 문서를 참고하여 이행전략을 개발하였다. 즉, 스웨덴은 원조효과 성 이행 행동방안을 통해서 스웨덴 정부가 OECD, EU, 북유럽연합체(Nordic+), UN 등의 국 제적 노력에 적극 참여할 수 있도록 의도하고 있다. 스웨덴의 원조효과성 제고를 위한 2006년 행동방안은 크게‘1) 파리선언 이행 모니터링, 2) 방법과 절차 개발, 3) 학습과 역량(competence) 개발, 4) 커뮤니케이션, 5) 질적 보장 (quality

4) Gov Bill 2002/03:122 5) 2005/06:1, Bilaga 7 6) UD2005/24624/GU

국제개발협력

- 126 -

assurance), 6) 이행방안 모니터링’ 을 중심으로 정리되어 있다. 그리고 각 방안에 대한 세부 행 동절차가 소개되어 있으며, 세부방안별 역할을 구분하여 담당부서와 절차 완료시기도 제시하고 있다. 스웨덴의 원조효과성 제고를 위한 행동방안에 따른 행동조치 절차는 다음과 같다.

가. 파리선언 이행 모니터링 1. 지표에 대한 개도국별 보고 •조언 및 조율 담당부서 : 정책부 (Department for Policy and Methodology, 이후 POM) •이행 담당부서 : 대사관7) •POM에 보고하는 기한일 : 2006년 9월 30일까지 2. 2007년 운영계획의 우선사항 정립 •프로그램 지원 이용과 집중되고 상호보완적이며 위임된 협력 •지시사항(instruction) 담당부서 : 이사장실 (Director-General's Office, DG's Office), 조직개발・재정부 (Department for Finance and Corporate Development, 이후 EVU) •기한일 : 2006년 9월 6일까지 최종 지시사항 완성 3. Sida를 위한 지표, 목표치, 평가방법 •담당부서 : POM •기한일 : 2006년 12월 31일까지 초안 완성 4. 대사관과 운영부서의 파리선언 이행을 위한 자문서비스 •담당부서 : 각 지역 담당 모든 부서. 단, 조율은 POM 담당 •기한일 : 2006년 10월 31일까지 조치사항(안) 상세히 기술 5. 다자기관에 의한 이행 평가 •가이드라인 담당부서 : POM •보고 담당부서 : 대사관 및 지역부서 •POM에 보고하는 기한일 : 2006년 9월 30일 7) Sida는 독립된 현지사무소를 운영하지 않고, 대사관과 통합되어 운영되고 있다 (Lim, 2011).

30 한국국제협력단 - 127 -

나. 방법과 절차 개발 6. 파리선언 이행을 방해하는 절차 조정 •조율 담당부서 : POM •이행부서 : EVU •기한일 : 2006년 12월 31일까지 제약사항 보고 및 조치방안 마련 7. 프로그램형 접근법(Programme-based Approach, 이후 PBA)을 위한 방법론과 절차 개발 (계속 진행) •담당부서 : 다른 부서와의 긴밀한 협조하에 POM이 담당 •기한일 : 2006년 12월 31일까지 정리보고서 마무리 8. 내부 결과중심의 관리(Management for Results) 프로젝트 (계속 진행) •담당부서 : 권한은 이사장실, 이행은 EVU •기한일 : 2006년 10월 착수보고, 2007년 6월 종료보고 다. 학습과 역량(competence) 개발 9. 역량개발을 위한 세미나 및 워크샵 •담당부서 : 인사부 (Department for Personnel and Organisation Development, ..

PEO-LAR) (POM과의 긴밀한 협조) •이행부서 : 모든 운영부서와 대사관 •기한일 : 2006년 8월까지 세미나 계획 완료 10. 원조효과성 아젠다 관련 인력구성, 채용, 인센티브에 대한 원칙 검토 ..

•담당부서 : 인사부 (PEO HR & STAB (LAR)) •기한일 : 2006년 8월 31일까지 구체적 계획 초안 개발 라. 커뮤니케이션 11. 원조효과성 아젠다에 대한 내부 커뮤니케이션과 외부 커뮤니케이션 전략 개발 (계속 진행) •담당부서 : 정보부 (Department for Information, INFO) •사전연구 기한일 : 2006년 6월

국제개발협력

- 128 -

12. 시민사회 대표와의 대화 및 커뮤니케이션 개발 •담당부서 : 인적지원・분쟁방지・NGO 협력부 (Department for Cooperation with NGOs and Humanitarian Assistance and Conflict Prevention, SEKA) •기한일 : 2006년 11월 30일까지 전략적 이슈에 대한 결론 제출 마. 질적보장 (Quality Assurance, QA) 13. 프로젝트위원회의 질적보장 논의에 원조효과성 아젠다 포함 (계속 진행) •담당부서 : POM, 지역별/분야별 부서, 대사관 14. 협력전략을 위한 동료평가위원회(Peer Review Committee for Cooperation Strategies)의 원조효과성 관련 이슈의 검토 및 모니터링 (계속 진행) 15. 대사관 내 질적보장 담당부서의 원조효과성 이슈 포함 (계속 진행) •담당부서 : 질적보장 담당부서(QA-unit) 바. 이행방안 모니터링 16. 스웨덴 개발협력의 원조효과성 향상정도 연간보고서에 포함 •보고 담당부서 : POM •정보제공 담당부서 : 대사관, 지역부서, 그 외 행동방안 이행 관련부서 •기한일 : 2006년 10월 31일

스웨덴 정부는 위와 같은 행동절차의 설계에 있어서 1) Sida의 모니터링 지표, 2) 이행을 위한 절차적 제약요소 감소, 3) 커뮤니케이션의 3가지를 우선 고려사항으로 정하였다. 그 외에 2006 년 행동방안은 Sida의 업무환경의 변화를 강조하고 있다. 즉, MDGs 뿐 아니라 파리선언이 국 제사회에 가져온 새로운 패러다임에 의거하여 Sida의 업무환경은 변화해야 한다고 보고 있는 것이다. 이와 관련하여 2006년 행동방안은 특히 현지사무소에서의 변화과정을 중점적으로 제 시하고 있다. 즉, 현지사무소의 경험을 바탕으로 프로그램을 기반으로 한 원조 지원 및 그 외 원 조방식에 변화를 가져올 것을 강조하였다. 나아가, 개도국에서의 공여국간 공동지원전략(Joint Assistance Strategies, JAS)의 중요성을 강조하고 있다. 스웨덴 정부는 행동방안을 통해 원 조효과성 아젠다는 곧 변화를 의미한다는 것을 재차 강조하면서, 현지사무소의 직원과 스톡홀

32 한국국제협력단 - 129 -

름 본부의 행정, 지역, 분야별 모든 부서 변화가 있어야 한다고 제시하였다. 또한 스웨덴 민간기 업, 컨설턴트, 정부제도 등의 요소에도 변화를 가져와야 한다는 것을 강조하고 있다. ▣ 2009년 행동방안 스웨덴의 2009년 행동방안은 스웨덴 외교부와 Sida가 함께 개발하였으며, 결과중심 관리시 스템의 일환으로 설계하여 행동방안의 이행여부를 해마다 평가하고, 평가 결과에 의한 개선점 을 도출하여 적용하는 과정을 가지고 있다. 이러한 행동방안의 근간을 이루고 있는 정부 정책은 다음과 같다. •2009년 예산안 (Budget Bill) •2009년 예산책정안 (Letter of Appropriation)8) 2009년 행동방안이 다루고자 하는 시기는 2009년에서 2011년까지이다. 이를 바탕으로 스웨 덴은 2012년에 부산파트너십 이행방안을 준비하고 있을 것으로 여겨진다. 스웨덴의 원조효과 성 제고를 위한 2009년 행동방안은 2006년 행동방안과는 다른 형태로 구성되었다. 스웨덴의 2009년 행동방안에서는 다음과 같은 7가지 우선목표를 설정하고 있다. •개도국 시스템 이용 향상 •PBA를 이용한 원조금액 증가 •원조예측성과 결과를 위한 책무성 향상 •선택과 집중 향상 •현지사무소와 지역사무소에서의 공동 분석업무 및 협동 증가 •특히 EU를 중심으로 한 다른 공여국과의 글로벌 협력 향상 •다자기관의 원조효과성 공약 달성을 위한 지원 향상 위와 같은 목표들은 파리선언 지표의 일부와 스웨덴만을 위한 지표를 통합하여 이행하여야 달 성할 수 있는 목표들이다. 스웨덴은 2006년 원조효과성 제고 행동방안 세부절차 3번에서 ‘Sida를 위한 지표, 목표치, 평가방법’ 을 별도로 개발하도록 한 바 있다. 스웨덴은 위의 7가지 목표를 각 공여국별 상황에 따라 차별적으로 적용하여 파리선언 이행에

8) 스웨덴의 Letter of Appropriation은 Sida의 연간예산을 정하고 있으며, 원조의 국가별, 지역별, 분야별 비용을 분배하고 있다 (Lim, 2011).

국제개발협력

- 130 -

기여하고자 하였다. 참고로 스웨덴의 양자원조는 다음과 같은 5개의‘협력국 카테고리 (category of cooperation countries)’ 에 의해 제공되고 있다. •카테고리 1 : 장기간 개발협력을 제공하고 있는 개도국 •카테고리 2 : 분쟁국과 분쟁 후 상황에 있는 개도국 •카테고리 3 : 동유럽 개도국 •카테고리 4 : 민주주의와 인권이 개선되어야 하는 개도국 •카테고리 5 : 점차적으로 스웨덴 개발협력 대상국에서 제외되고 있는 개도국 스웨덴은 이 중 카테고리 1, 2, 3에 해당하는 개도국을 대상으로 국가별 목표치와 모니터링 방법을 수립하여 파리선언 지표 및 스웨덴의 원조효과성 지표를 적용할 것을 행동방안에서 제 시하고 있다. 카테고리 4에 해당하는 개도국의 경우, 2009년 행동방안의 원칙과 관련있고 적용 이 가능한 경우에만 원조효과성 지표를 도입하여 원조를 제공하고, 카테고리 5에 해당하는 개 도국의 경우 행동방안에 입각한 원조를 제공할 수 있도록 제시하고 있다.

3.2. 영국 영국의 파리선언 이행을 위한 행동방안은 영국‘원조백서’와‘종합지출검토보고서 9)에서 제시하고 있는 원조효과성 공약을 기반으 (Comprehensive Spending Review, CSR)’

로 하고 있으며, 다음의 5가지 중요사항을 강조하고 있다. •강하고 적극적인 개도국의 리더십 •개도국 국가계획 및 우선사항을 중심으로 한 지원 •공동 사업운영 (공동예산지원 및 공동역량개발) •혁신적 접근법으로의 변화 (공동 프로그램, 공동전략, 사무소 공유, 직원공유) •더 나은 분야별 공여국 간 노동분업(division of labour) 합의 영국의 파리선언 이행방안은 정책부(Policy Division), 국제부(International Division Advisory Department), 그리고 각 지역부서(Regional Divisions)가 함께 이행할 수 있도록 개발되었으며, 다음과 같이 향후 고민해야 할 방향도 함께 제시하였다. 9) 종합지출검토보고서에 대한 내용은‘임소진 (2012). 국제사회의 Post-2015 개발 프레임워크 수립동향 및 한국 ODA의 기여방안. KOICA 개발정책 포커스 제14호. 한국국제협력단.’참고

34 한국국제협력단 - 131 -

•원조의 선택적 배분(selectivity) : 원조고아 문제 각성10) •다자기관에 대한 전략적 원조배분 •원조효과성에 대한 공여국 책무성 강화 영국의 행동방안은 1) 현지사무소 차원에서의 행동방안, 2) 국제적 행동방안, 3) 지역차원의 행동방안, 그리고 4) DFID 조직차원의 행동방안으로 구분하여 설계되었다. 이 중 현지사무소 차원의 행동방안을 제외한 내용은 각 방안과 관련된 담당부서를 별도로 지정하여 제시하고 있 다. 영국의 파리선언 이행을 위한 현지사무소의 행동방안은 다음과 같다. 가. 주인의식 1. 개도국의 실질적 개발전략 소유 •개도국 정부와 함께 예산 절차와 연결된 개도국이 소유한 개도국 주도의 개발전략 개발 •국가전략 이행을 위한 효과적인 장기간 재정지원 제공 나. 원조일치 2. 신뢰할 수 있는 개도국 시스템 •개도국의 재정관리 시스템과 조달시스템이 받아들여질 수 있는 수준으로 개발되도록 개 도국 정부 및 타 공여국과 함께 노력 •시스템 강화 지원 (예 : 공공재정관리 성과측정프레임워크 이용 향상, 공공재정관리 개선 프로그램 개발 및 이행 지원 등) 3. 개도국의 국가우위와 일치된 원조의 흐름 •개도국 정부에 대한 원조금액 100% 모두가 개도국 국가 예산에 보고될 수 있도록 보장 4. 조율된(coordinated) 지원을 통한 개도국 역량강화 •개도국 정부와 함께 개도국 국가역량 강화 프로그램 개발 •타 공여국과 함께 역량강화를 위한 공동 지원 (개도국 정부가 소유하고 개도국 정부가 주 도한 프로그램 위주)

10) 원조제공시 수원국 선택 정책(selectivity)의 자세한 내용은‘임소진 (2012). 원조효과성에서 개발협력효과성으로. 국제개발협력 2012년 2호. 한국국제협력단.’참고

국제개발협력

- 132 -

5. 개도국 시스템 이용 •개도국의 시스템을 충분히 신뢰할 수 있고 시스템의 약점을 보완할 수 있는 개선프로그 램이 있는 경우에 한하여, 개도국 공공재정관리시스템 또는/그리고 조달시스템 이용 •조건이 맞는 경우에 한하여, 빈곤감소예산지원(poverty reduction budget support, 이후 PRBS)11)과 같은 융통성 있는 자금조달 방법 이용 향상 6. 평행적수행조직 중복회피를 통한 개도국 역량강화 •평행적 프로젝트 수행조직을 통한 사업진행 금지 또는 평행적 프로젝트 수행조직 신설 금지 7. 원조예측성 제고 •개도국 예산에 포함되는 원조의 집행계획에 대한 정보제공, 개도국 회계연도의 첫 6개월 간 PRBS로 집행, 집행계획 대비 실제 집행액(disbursement) 보고 및 차이에 대한 이유 제시, 향후 3년 동안의 약정액(commitment) 제시 다. 원조조화 8. 원조사업의 공동 업무처리 또는 공동 절차 사용 •조건이 가능한 경우, 프로젝트 지원의 형태를 프로그램 기반의 지원으로 전환 •일정 분야에서의 공여국 사업수 감소를 위한 개도국 정부 및 타 공여국간 명확한 노동분 업(division of labour) 합의 9. 공동 현지사무소와 공동 국가 분석 활동 장려 •타 공여국을 포함하는, 그리고 합의된 개도국 프로그램을 운영할 수 있는 계획 마련 •공여국간 문서와 분석공유 •개도국 주도 분석 지원 향상 (예 : 정책분석 역량강화, 국가전략과 분야별 계획을 위한 개 도국의 연구 및 분석지원 등)

11) 영국은 예산지원(budget support)을‘빈곤감소 예산지원(poverty reduction budget support, PRBS)'이라는 명칭으로 사용하고 있다 (Lim, 2011).

36 한국국제협력단 - 133 -

라. 결과중심원조 10. 결과중심 프레임워크 •개도국 정부 및 타 공여국과 함께 국가 및 분야별 성과 모니터링을 위한 공동 프레임워 크 개발 마. 상호책무성 11. 상호책무성 •개도국 정부 및 타 공여국과 함께 원조효과성 향상에 대한 발전정도를 평가할 수 있는 상호책무성 메커니즘 개발 •개도국 정부가 원조를 효과적으로 관리할 수 있는 역량강화를 위한 공동지원 12. 조건제시(conditionality)12) •DFID의 새로운 조건제시 정책 이행 •DFID 원조지원 조건을 DFID 웹사이트에 공개 위에서 보는 바와 같이, 영국은 현지사무소에서의 파리선언 이행 행동방안을 각 지표를 중심 으로 제시하였다. 그러나 영국정부는 파리선언 지표 8인 원조의 비구속화 부분은 이 행동방안 에 포함하지 않고 있다. 참고로 영국은 세 차례의 파리선언 이행 모니터링 결과에서 원조 비구 속화 비율을 모두 100%로 보고하고 있다 (OECD, 2007, 2008, 2011). 영국정부의 파리선언 이행 행동방안의 또 다른 특이한 사항은‘원조제공 조건정책’ 을 포함하 고 있다는 것이다. 영국정부는 국제적으로 비난받고 있는 1980년대 및 1990년대의 조건제시정 책과는 다른 새로운 조건제시정책을 개발하였으며, 이러한 개정된 원조조건이 부정적이지 않다 고 설명한다. 그 이유는 원조제공에 있어서 개도국에게 합당한 조건을 제시함으로써 개도국의 재정관리 및 책무성을 강화하고 개도국 정부의 불안정한 행정제도 또는 부패로 인해 원조재원 이 잘못 사용될 수 있는 위험을 줄일 수 있다는 것이다. 사실상 국제사회는 파리선언에서 원조 제공에 대한 조건제시 정책을 부정적으로 보고 있지는 않다 (Lim, 2011). 영국의 파리선언 이행 행동방안은 위와 같은 구체적인 행동방안과 함께, 그동안의 영국 원조

12) 원조에 대한 조건제시 정책(conditionality)의 자세한 내용은‘임소진 (2012). 원조효과성에서 개발협력효과성으 로. 국제개발협력 2012년 2호. 한국국제협력단.’참고

국제개발협력

- 134 -

의 경험에서 배울 수 있었던 교훈과, 이를 바탕으로 향후 영국 원조의 효과성 제고를 위한 개선 점에 대해 소개하고 있다. 영국은 스웨덴과 마찬가지로 EU와 북유럽연합체(Nordic+)의 원조 에 대한 기본 원칙을 존중하고 있다. 또한 스웨덴과 마찬가지로 취약국에 대한 차별적 전략의 중요성을 강조하기도 하였다.

3.3. 호주 호주정부는 파리선언 또는 원조효과성을 위한 별도의 이행방안은 수립하지 않았으나,‘원조 백서’ 와‘정부예산안’ , 그리고‘원조프로그램의 성과평가전략(Performance Assessment Strategy for the aid program)’ 에서 제시하고 있는 원조효과성 공약과 OECD DAC의 동료 검토(Peer Review)에 의거하여 파리선언을 이행하도록 하였다 (AusAID, 2006). 즉, 호주는 파리선언 이행을 위해 행동방안을 설립하여 따르는 형태가 아니라, 다양한 평가제도를 유기적 으로 연결하여 원조백서에서 제시된 정책에서 이행단계를 거쳐 평가까지, 그리고 평가의 결과 를 정책에 다시 반영하는 과정을 전략적으로 이용하고 있는 것이다. 호주정부는 특히 파리선언 이행에 대한 자체평가를 2007년과 2010년 두 차례 실시하였다. 2007년에 실시한 파리선언 이행 자체평가에서 발견된 개선사항은 이후 파리선언 이행과정에 적용하여 문제점을 개선할 수 있도록 하였다. 또한 2007년 평가에서 강점으로 분석된 부분은 이후 파리선언 이행과정에서 지속적으로 유지 및 강화할 수 있도록 제시하였다. 2010년 평가에 서는 2007년 평가 이후 개선사항으로 제안된 항목을 중점적으로 다루었다 (AusAID, 2010). 호주정부는 2010년 자체평가에서 파리선언 이행과정에서 발견된 호주 원조의 문제점들을 향후 호주의 원조효과성 제고를 위한 방안으로 제시하고, 이러한 내용이 2011년 부산총회에도 기여 할 수 있도록 의도하였다. 참고로 호주의 파리선언 이행 전략 및 평가는 AusAID 내 개발효과성 사무소(Office of Development Effectiveness)가 담당하고 있다.

4. 한국의 부산 글로벌 파트너십 이행을 위한 시사점

본 연구는 향후 한국의 부산파트너십 이행방안 마련을 위하여, 스웨덴, 영국, 호주의 파리선 언 이행을 위한 행동방안과 전략을 알아보았다. 그 과정에서 본 연구는 세 국가 모두 국가 원조 정책 및 정부예산안과 파리선언을 연계하여 행동방안 및 전략을 수립한 것을 알 수 있었다. 또 한, 파리선언 뿐 아니라 공여국별로 원조효과성 제고를 위해 우선사항으로 고려되고 있는 지표 를 추가적으로 개발한 것을 알 수 있었다. 또한, 공통적으로 취약국에 대한 고려와 개도국별 상

38 한국국제협력단 - 135 -

황에 맞는 차별화 된 접근법을 사용하였다. 나아가 세 국가 모두 평가를 통해 개선해야 할 사항 을 분석하여 각 국가 ODA의 발전방안으로 제안하고 있다. 국가별로 보았을때, 스웨덴은 행동방안 수립에 있어서 국가 원조정책 뿐 아니라 이행기관이 우선적으로 중요하게 생각하는 원칙을 수립하여, 그를 중심으로 세부절차가 확립될 수 있도록 하였다. 세부 이행방안을 살펴보면, 파리선언 이행을 위한 절차, 담당부서, 기한을 명확히 제시 하여, 파리선언 이행을 위한 체계적인 준비가 가능하도록 하였으며 (2006년 이행방안), 이 단계 이후에는 7가지 우선목표를 중심으로 파리선언을 이행할 수 있도록 하였다. 영국의 경우, 원조 효과성 제고를 위한 5가지 중요사항을 중심으로, 현지사무소, 국제단계, 지역차원, DFID 조직 차원의 행동방안을 각각 파리선언의 5대 기본원칙을 고려하여 개발하였다. 영국 역시 각 세부 항목별 이행 담당부서를 제시하였다. 호주는 특별한 행동방안은 없으나, 다양한 평가제도를 연 계하여 파리선언 이행과정에서 발견된 제약점을 개선할 수 있도록 하였다. 호주 역시 파리선언 이행에 있어서 전체적인 총괄(control tower) 역할을 하는 부서를 명확히 제시하고 있다. 이와 같은 타 공여국의 파리선언 이행을 위한 행동방안 및 전략을 보았을때, 한국 ODA는 앞 으로 부산파트너십 이행을 위해 다음과 같은 사항을 고려해야 할 것이다. 우선, 원조백서와 같 은 국가원조정책 문서를 발간하여, 부산파트너십 이행을 공약으로 제시하고, 외교부와 국제개 발협력위원회는 한국 ODA 기본계획과 연간시행계획에 부산파트너십의 지표가 반영될 수 있도 록 해야 한다. 이러한 과정을 거쳐 한국 원조 이행기관 모두 ODA 기본계획에 나와있는 방향을 토대로 부산파트너십 이행 행동방안을 마련해야 할 것이다. 특히 한국 무상・유상 원조 전담기 관인 한국국제협력단(KOICA)와 한국수출입은행(EximBank)은 부산 파트너십 이행을 위해 적 극적으로 협력해야 할 것이다. 그 외 부산파트너십 이행을 위한 행동방안 개발에 있어서 반드시 병행되어야 할 사항은 부산 파트너십의 이행을 위해 변화가 필요한 부분과 개선되어야 할 사항에 대한 분석이다. 이를 바탕 으로 하여 필요한 절차를 수립하고, 절차별 완료기간과 담당부서를 함께 제시하여야 한다. 또 한, 행동방안에 따른 이행여부 평가와 이행과정에서 발견되는 제약점에 대한 개선이 가능할 수 있도록 모니터링 및 평가 계획도 함께 수립되어야 할 것이다. 한국은 2010년 DAC 회원국이 된 후, 2011년 부산총회를 개최하였고, 2012년 부산 글로벌 파트너십 집행위원회 회원국이 되었다. 이로 인해 한국은 국제사회의 더 많은 관심과 주목을 받 고 있으며, 이러한 한국은 원조효과성 및 개발협력효과성에 대한 기여와 발전방안을 위한 준비 와 개선이 필요하다. 따라서 한국정부는 부산파트너십의 효과적 이행을 위하여 구체적이고 시 기적절한 행동방안 및 전략을 마련하여 수행하여야 할 것이다.

국제개발협력

- 136 -

참고문헌 국외문헌 AusAID (2006). FAQ on Paris Declaration and Aid Effectiveness. October 2006. _______ (2010). Australia Update for the Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration. Phase 2. DFID (UK Department for International Development) (2006). DFID’ s Medium Term Action Plan on Aid Effectiveness: Our Response to the Paris Declaration. Donor Policy and Partnerships Team, Policy Division. Lim, S. (2011). Aid Effectiveness and the Implementation of the Paris Declaration: a Comparative Study of Sweden, the United Kingdom, South Korea and China in Tanzania. Doctoral thesis. Manchester, University of Manchester. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2007). 2006 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration: Overview of the Results. Paris, OECD. _______ (2008). 2008 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration: Making Aid More Effective by 2010. Paris, OECD. _______ (2011). Aid Effectiveness 2005-10: Progress in Implementing the Paris Declaration. Paris, OECD. _______ (2012a). Proposal for the Mandate of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)7. Paris, OECD. _______ (2012b). Proposed Indicators, Targets and Process for Global Monitoring of the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. Proposal by the Post-Busan Interim Group. DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)8/REV1. Paris, OECD. _______ (2012c). Steering Committee of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. Chair's Proposal. DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)6. Paris, OECD. _______ (2012d). Proposed Scope and Approach to the Global Monitoring of Busan Partnership Commitments and Actions. Consultation Paper. Post-Busan Interim Group. DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)5. Paris, OECD. Sida (2006). Increased Aid Effectiveness: Sida Action Plan 2006-2008. POM Working Paper. Department for Policy and Methdology. Stockholm, Sida. _______ (2009). Action Plan on Aid Effectiveness 2009-2011. Stockholm, Sida.

40 한국국제협력단 - 137 -

부산 세계개발원조총회 최종결과와 향후과제

[시민사회]

KoFID의 부산 글로벌 파트너십 이행계획 국제개발협력시민사회포럼(KoFID)

- 139 -

국제개발협력시민사회포럼의 부산 글로벌 파트너십 이행계획(안) 2012 년 8 월 17 일 국제개발협력시민사회포럼 (KoFID)

1. 추진 배경

o 부산 세계개발원조총회이후 2012 년 6 월 말 열린 원조효과작업반 최종회의에서 포스트 부산 임시그룹(Post Busan Interim Group)의 글로벌 파트너십 운영방안 및 글로벌 모니터링 체제 제안이 승인되었다. 이로써 지난 부산 세계개발원조총회의 결과인 “효과적인 개발협력을 위한 부산 글로벌 파트너십”이 공식적으로 출범했다.

o 한국정부는 부산총회의 주최국이자 원조효과작업반(WP-EFF)과 포스트 부산 임시 그룹의

부의장으로

“부산

글로벌

파트너십”의

출범에

적극적으로

기여한

바를

인정받아 집행위원회의 공여국 대표로 선출되었다. 이에 따라 한국 정부는 글로벌 파트너십 운영에 대한 지속적인 리더십을 가지고 부산총회의 공약과 합의사항의 국내 이행을 위해 노력을 다해야 할 국내외적 책무를 가지게 되었다.

o 또한 한국시민사회는 모니터링 및 감시활동을 통해 우리 정부가 부산 글로벌 파트너십을 성실하게 이행할 수 있도록 독려하고, 동시에 새로운 글로벌 개발협력 체제에 참여하는 주체이자 동등한 파트너로서 부산 파트너십의 효과적이고 지속가능한 이행을

위해

적극적으로

노력해야

한다는

역할을

자임하고

있다.

국제개발협력시민사회포럼(이하 코피드)은 아래 부산총회 이후 글로벌 파트너십의 이행을 위한 활동계획을 제시하며 이러한 시민사회의 노력에 관심과 협력을 아끼지 않을 것을 촉구한다.

1 - 141 -

2. 한국시민사회의 글로벌 파트너십 참여와 이행방안

코피드는 정부의 이행감시활동을 벌임에 있어서는 부산 글로벌 모니터링의 지표를 중심으로 활동을 전개할 계획이다.

시민사회의 부산 글로벌 파트너십의 이행을

위해서는 아직 부족한 인식제고를 위해 노력할 것이며 역량을 강화하는데 더욱 힘을 기울일 계획이다.

1) 한국정부의 부산 글로벌 파트너십 이행 감시활동

□ 한국 ODA 의 효과성과 질적 제고를 위한 원조 정책과 체제 구축 감시활동

<지표별 주요 감시 사항>

o (지표 1: 수원국의 우선순위 반영) - 중점협력국 선정 및 지원 계획(CPS) 수립시 파트너 국가의 개발전략, 분야별 계획 및 기타 프레임워크를 반영 여부 - 파트너 국가의 분야 정보 시스템 자료 및 국가 통계를 반영 여부

o (지표 4: 개발협력 정보 공개) - 2013 년까지 국제원조투명성이니셔티브(IATI)에 가입하고 국내 국제개발협력에 관한 제반 절차에 대한 전면적 정보공개를 통해 사업의 투명성 제고 촉구 - OECD/DAC CRS (Creditor Reporting System)보고 이전에 국민들에게 원조 통계 및 실적 자료 공개 요구

o (지표 5: 예측가능성) - 원조예측성을 높이기 위해 파트너국과의 정책 대화 등 실질적이고 지속적인 협의를 통해 원조지원계획을 사전에 공유 요구 - 현재의 단기적인 원조예산 수립 시스템을 넘어 점진적으로 중, 장기에 이르는 다년도 예산 수립 및 집행이 가능하도록 예산제도를 개선 촉구 2 - 142 -

o (지표 9: 수원국 시스템 활용) - 파트너 국가의 오너십과 역량 강화를 위해 파트너 국가 공공재정관리시스템 활용을 확대 요구 - 공여국 중심의 “단독 주도형 프로젝트(stand alone-project)” 원조를 지양하고, 다양한 원조양식을 통합해 파트너 국가의 국가 및 섹터 개발 전략에 부합하는 프로그램형 원조를 확대 요구

o (지표 10: 비구속화) -

국제사회의

권고대로

현행

국제개발협력

선진화

방안에서

제시하고

있는

비구속성 목표치를 넘어 2015 년까지 단계적으로 구속성 원조를 폐지 촉구 * 선진화 방안 목표: 2015 년까지 무상원조 100%, 유상원조 50% 비구속화

o (지표 외: 원조분절화 개선을 위한 통합원조체제 구축) - 한국 국제개발협력의 질곡의 원인인 이원화된 집행 체계와 분절적 원조를 지양하고 통합적인 원조체제를 구축하여 현재 존재하는 모든 원조 형태에 있어 정책 일관성과 원조의 효과성을 확립 촉구

□ 효과적인 개발협력을 위한 파트너십 구축과 환경조성 촉구활동

o (지표 2: 시민사회의 참여와 기여) - 한국시민사회의 개발협력 역량 강화 지원을 확대 촉구 - 국내 시민사회의 개발협력 활동을 촉진하기 위한 제도적, 법적, 정치적 환경을 조성 요구 - 정부 부처 및 기관의 다양한 민관협력실의 역할을 조정하고 통제하여 실질적 성과를 내올 수 있는 민관협력 정책을 수립 촉구 - 이를 통해 진정한 파트너로서 시민사회의 역할을 지지하며 참여를 보장 요구

3 - 143 -

o (지표 3: 민간분야의 역량강화) - 기업의 개발협력 활동 참여에 대해 단기적 자국 기업의 이익보다 파트너 국가의 발전을 촉진하고 개발협력의 효과성을 위한 활동에 기업이 적극 참여할 수 있도록 제도 수립 촉구 - 개발협력 사업에 참여하는 기업이 지켜야 할 인권‧환경에 대한 규범을 수립하고 이를 지키도록 감독‧규제 촉구

2) 한국시민사회의 부산 글로벌 파트너십 실행 방안

□ 부산 글로벌 파트너십에 대한 인지제고 및 역량강화

o 국내 개발 NGO 및 CSO 들의 부산 글로벌 파트너십에 대한 인지제고 - 부산 글로벌 파트너십 집행위원회의 내용에 대한 지속적인 모니터링 및 국내 공유 - 한국시민사회의 이행 전략 수립을 위한 내부 토론회 개최

o 부산 글로벌 모니터링 지표 2(시민사회의 참여와 기여)의 국내적 이행 - CIVICUS 지표 개발 과정에 참여 - 지표 개발 이후 지표의 국내 이행을 위한 인지제고를 위한 교육활동 및 사용 환경 조성

o 시민사회 개발효과성 강화 - 국내 개발 NGO 및 CSO 들의 이스탄불 원칙에 대한 이해 증진활동 - 시민사회 단체들의 책무성 강화 메카니즘 수립 - 국내시민사회의 개발협력 활동의 투명성 제고를 위해 사업정보 공개 - 해원협과의 협력을 통해 개발 NGO 사업 현장의 개발효과성 역량강화 지원

o 시민사회 애드보커시 역량 강화 - 한국 정부의 개발협력정책 및 체제 개선을 촉구하는 애드보커시 활동 확대 4 - 144 -

- 서비스 전달 중심의 사업뿐만 아니라 국내 제도 개선을 요구하고 국제 규범을 준수하는 옹호활동 강화

□ 부산 글로벌 파트너십 이행을 위한 다자간 협력 강화

o 국내의 다양한 개발행위자들과의 파트너십 구축 - 지방정부, 기업, 민간재단, 국회 등 다양한 개발행위자들과의 제도적 협력 체계 구축 - 한국정부의 민관협력, 산학협력 사업 및 기업의 CSR 활동에 대한 정책제언 및 경험 공유

□ 국제시민사회와의 연대와 파트너십 강화

o 국제시민사회의 포스트 부산 논의 (CSO Partnership for Development) 참여 - 동북아지역의 중심점으로서 부산 글로벌 파트너십의 이행을 위한 동북아 시민사회의 의견수렴, 파트너십 구축 - 2012 년 9 월 20 일 동북아지역 CPDE 컨설테이션 주최 예정

o 아시아 시민사회와의 협력을 통한 애드보커시 연대활동 (Advocacy Coalition for ASIA) 강화 - 2012 년 12 월 캄보디아에서 아시아지역 개발 시민사회단체 회의 공동주최 및 참여예정

o 부산 글로벌 파트너십 이행에 대한 정기적인 점검 - 코피드 주최 연 1 회 정례 서울시민사회포럼 개최를 통해 부산 글로벌 파트너십 이행에 대한 점검과 시민사회의 전략 수립 - 2012 년 9 월 21 일 제 3 회 서울시민사회포럼 개최 예정

(끝) 5 - 145 -

부산 세계개발원조총회 최종결과와 향후과제

[시민사회]

한국시민사회의 부산 글로벌 파트너십 종합이행계획 한국해외원조단체협의회(KCOC)

- 147 -

한국시민사회의 부산 글로벌 파트너십 종합이행계획 2012년 8월 8일 한국해외원조단체협의회

1. 배경 및 개요 - 2012년 6월 효과적인 개발협력을 위한 글로벌 파트너십 (GPEDC: Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation)이 출범함에 따라 해원협은 한국 시민사회단체(CSO)들이 부산 총회 결과문서 22항에서 언급된 인권에 기반 한 접근(RBA)과 이스탄불원칙을 이행 할 수 있도록 지원 할 예정 - 향후 해원협은 부산 총회의 결과문서에 나타난 기본 원칙들을 존중하고 개발 협력의 여러 주체들과 함께하는 포괄적인 파트너십을 성취하기 위해 다음과 같은 활동을 전개하고자 함 <해원협의 GPEDC 이행 구성도>

2. 상세 내용 1) 한국 CSO의 역량 및 책무성 강화 (1) CSO역량강화 ① 개발효과성 증진을 위한 사업 수행 역량강화 1

- 149 -

② -

국내 CSO들의 이스탄불 원칙 인지제고를 위한 자료 발간 및 세미나 개최 CSO 개발효과성 증대를 위한 교육 프로그램 시행 이스탄불 원칙과 국제프레임워크 준수 사례공유를 위한 워크샵 개최 이스탄불 원칙 및 프레임워크 보급확대를 위한 강사양성 프로그램 시행 이스탄불 원칙 CSO사업적용을 위한 컨설팅 지원 애드보커시 역량강화 RBA 및 이스탄불 원칙을 성취할 수 있도록 하는 CSO들의 애드보커시 역 량강화 프로그램 시행 IADG(국제적으로 합의된 개발협력 목표: Internationally Agreed Development Goals)에 대한 연구조사 및 자료발간

(2) CSO책무성 강화 ① 책무성 강화 - 한국의 환경에 맞춘 ‘한국 시민사회 책무성 프레임워크’개발 - 보급 및 인지제고를 위한 세미나와 교육 프로그램 시행 2) 한국 정부 및 국내 공여주체와의 파트너십 증대 ① 시민사회 개발효과성을 위한 여건 조성(Enabling Environment)관련 한국형 지표(Indicator)개발 및 모니터링 - 법/제도 및 정책 제안을 위한 조사연구 및 세미나 - 현재 특임장관실에서 개발중인 ‘NGO협력을 위한 10대 과제’와 연결하여 한국정부가 개발협력의 국제적 기준(global standard)을 준수 할 수 있도 록 EE에 대한 한국형 지표 개발 및 준수 상황 모니터링 ② 한국정부와의 거버넌스 및 파트너십 강화 - 시민사회 개발효과성을 위한 시민사회와 정부의 정기적인 세미나 개최 - 개발협력연대를 통한 무상원조 개발협력의 포괄적인 거버넌스 및 파트너 십 참여 ③ 다양한 공여기관과의 파트너십 증대 - 기업, 의회 등과의 협력방안에 관한 연구 조사 시행 - 국내 기업 PPP가이드라인 연구 및 개발 3) 국제 CSO들과의 협력 및 연대 ① CPDE (CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness) 참여 - 향후 GPEDC의 집행위원회를 구성할 시민사회의 대표 단위인 CPDE의 연 대활동에 참여 - CPDE의 동북아시아 포컬포인트인 KoFID와 협력 하여 동북아 시민사회의 의견수렴 및 국제 개발협력의제 공동대응 ② 국제 시민사회의 사례 공유 - RBA 및 이스탄불 원칙을 적용하고 있는 국제 시민사회와의 사례공유 워 크샵 및 컨퍼런스 개최 2

- 150 -

4) 국제기구를 통한 GPEDC 이행 모니터링 ① 글로벌 GPEDC 모니터링 - GPEDC 운영체제에 포함되는 정기적 장관급 회의, 집행위원회 등에 참여 하여 부산 총회 합의사항 이행 모니터링 ② 10개 글로벌 모니터링 지표를 통한 부산 총회 합의사항 이행 검토 - GPEDC과 관련된 국제개발협력 회의 참석 및 브리핑 페이퍼 발간

- 151 -