013 the 3rd civil society forum (scsf) effective implementation of busan partnership in northeast as by KoFID

The 3rd Seoul Civil Society Forum (SCSF) Effective implementation of Busan Partnership in Northeast Asia 1-6 pm on 21 September 2012, LG Convention Center, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Concept Note & Guidelines (version 5, 17 September 2012)

1. The 3rd Seoul Civil Society Forum (SCSF) is a joint initiative of KCOC (Korea NGO Council for Overseas Cooperation and KoFID (Korea Civil Society Forum on International Development Cooperation) with the support of KOICA (Korea International Cooperation Agency) 2. It is organized under the theme “Effective Implementation of the “Busan Partnership in Northeast Asia” in order to build public awareness of international development cooperation and enhance the CSO advocacy capacity in the post-Busan context among CSOs in Northeast region. 3. The Forum is expected to assess the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation which was formally established in June 2012 from the CSO perspective, and identify main challenges and tasks ahead in each country in Northeast Asia. In particular, the Forum intends to focus on the implementation of the Istanbul Principles and enabling environment for CSO development effectiveness, and sharing of experiences among CSOs in Northeast Asia. 4. The Forum is a follow-up to the two previous meetings, namely the 1st Seoul Civil Society Forum on Aid and Development Effectiveness (Seoul, 1-2 Sept. 2011) and the 2nd SCSF on Busan Partnerships (Busan, 2-3 February 2012) as part of the Korean CSOs continued efforts to promote effective development cooperation among civil society in Northeast Asia. 5. About 50 CSO representatives, including local participants who are mainly members of KoFID and KCOC as well as governmental institutions on international development cooperation, are expected to attend the Forum. Among overseas participants, several representatives of CSOs including national platforms, mainly from Mongolia, China and Japan are expected to attend the Forum. Host Organizations 6. KoFID was created on September 2010 as a national umbrella for policy advocacy and engagement with government and for international networking among CSOs in Korea engaged in aid and development effectiveness issues. It is a member of the BetterAid Coordinating Group (BACG) and the Global Facilitating Group (GFG) of Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness. It served as the host of the Global Civil Society Forum (BCSF) in Busan on 26-28 Nov. 2011) prior to the 4th OECD HLF-4 (Busan, 29 Nov. to 1 Dec. 2011). It is composed of 24 individual CSOs and networks including the KCOC.

7. KCOC (Korea NGO Council for Overseas Cooperation) was established in 1999 as a national platform among CSOs engaged mainly in service delivery in developing countries. As of August 2012, it consists of more than 92 CSOs. KCOC works to promote information sharing among member organizations and facilitate capacitybuilding and policy advocacy. Program Agenda 8. The Forum is composed of 2 sessions which are as follows;  Session 1 (Plenary) : Post-Busan Global Development Agendas and Challenges for North East Asia  Session 2 (Plenary) : Implementation Strategies of Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation with focus on Istanbul Principles and enabling environment Annex A. Provisional Program Agenda and schedule B. Guideline questions for presentation C. List of Overseas Participating Organizations Guideline Questions for Session2 From your organizational / personal point of view, ① What were most significant achievements of the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (BPEDC) from CSO perspective in your own country? ② What is your assessment of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC)? ③ What has been done to implement the Istanbul Principles within CSO communities in your own country? ④ What kinds of actions were taken with regard to enabling environment for CSO development effectiveness? ⑤ What kinds of suggestions to enhance cooperation among CSOs in Northeast?

제 3회 서울시민사회포럼 부산 파트너십의 효과적인 이행 - 동북아 시민사회를 중심으로 일시: 2012년 9월 21일(금) 13:00-18:00 장소: 이화여자대학교 LG컨벤션홀 제 3 회 서울시민사회포럼에 여러분을 초대합니다. 이번 서울시민사회포럼은 올해 6 월 OECD 원조효과작업반 최종회의 결과 출범한 ‘효과적인 개발협력을 위한 글로벌 파트너십’을 동북아시아에서 실현하기 위한 방안을 논의하고자 개최됩니다. 최근 국제사회에서는 개발협력의 패러다임이 ‘더 나은 원조’에서 ‘포괄적인 개발협력’으로 변화하고 있습니다. 이에 국제기구, 정부, 시민사회 등 다양한 국제개발협력의 관계자들은 효과적이고 포괄적인 개발협력을 성취하기 위한 논의를 전개해 왔습니다.

제 3 회 서울시민사회포럼을 통해 부산 세계개발원조총회(HLF-4) 결과를 포함, 현재 논의되고

있는

국제개발협력의

동향을

정리하고

이에

따른

동북아

시민사회의

도전과제와 효과적인 개발협력을 성취할 수 있는 여건조성을 토의할 것입니다.

국제개발협력의 미래에 관심 있는 여러분의 많은 참여 부탁드립니다.

공동주최: KoFID(국제개발협력시민사회포럼), KCOC(한국해외원조단체협의회) 협력기관: KAIDEC(국제개발협력학회) 후원: KOICA(한국국제협력단)

The 3rdSeoul Civil Society Forum (SCSF) Seoul, Korea / 21September 2012

Program Structure and Agenda (Updated on 17 September 2012) 12:30-13:00

13:00-13:30

13:30-15:15

Registration Opening Session  Welcome remarks Mr. Youngkee MOON, Vice President of KCOC  Congratulation Remarks Mr. Yungil JEONG, Managing Director, Civil Society Cooperation Office, KOICA  Introduction of program schedule and participants Session 1 (plenary): Post-Busan Global Development Agendas and Challenges for North East Asia Moderator : Mr. Hyunju CHO, Secretary General of Global Civil Sharing, KOREA Keynote Speeches:  Challenges and Opportunities of Global Partnership and Post-2015, Mr. Artemy IZMESTIEV, Policy Specialist of UNDP Seoul Policy Centre  Civil Society Response to Busan Global Partnership,Mr. Anselmo LEE, KoFID/KCOC, KOREA  Strategies for Effective International Cooperation among CSOs in Northeast Asia, Mr. Masaaki OHASHI, Chair person of JANIC, JAPAN Panelists:  Ms. Jiyoung YUN, Policy and Planning Manager of ODA Watch, KOREA  Ms. Jung Hee MIN, Manager of Project Development Team, Lotus World, KOREA  Mr. Victor W.C. HSU, Director of International Aid and Education, School of Public Policy and Management, KDI  Ms. Sojin LIM, Researcher of ODA Research Office, KOICA

15:15-15:45

15:45-17:45

17:45-18:00

Break Session 2 (plenary) : Implementation Strategies of Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation with focus on Istanbul Principles and enabling environment Moderator : Mr. Boowon NAM, Chair of International Committee of KCOC / Chair of Steering Committee of KoFID, KOREA Presentations :  Ms. Faye LEE, Program Manager of KCOC, KOREA  Mr. Daxing ZHAO, Deputy Executive Director, CANGO, CHINA  Mr. Akio TAKAYANAGI, Policy Advisor on Aid Effectiveness of JANIC, JAPAN  Ms. Urantsooj GOMBOSUREN, Chair person of CHRD, MONGOLIA Synthesis and conclusion

제 3회 서울시민사회포럼 프로그램 12:30-13:00

등록 개회

13:00-13:30



환영사, 이창식 KCOC(한국해외원조단체협의회) 회장



축사, 박대원 한국국제협력단(KOICA) 이사장



프로그램과 참석자 소개

세션1 : 부산총회 이후의 국제개발협력 동향과 동북아시아 시민사회의 과제 사회 : 조현주 지구촌나눔운동 사무총장 발표 

글로벌 파트너십과Post 2015개발아젠다:ArtemyIzmestiev UNDP 서울정책센터 정책전문가



부산글로벌 파트너십과 시민사회의 대응 : 이성훈 KoFID 국제위원장/KCOC 정책센터장

13:30-15:15



동북아시아 시민사회의 효과적인 협력 방안 : Masaaki OHASHI, JANIC 회장



윤지영, ODA Watch 정책기획팀장



민정희, 로터스월드 사업기획팀장



Victor W.C. HSU, KDI 국제정책대학원 국제원조∙개발교육 디렉터



임소진, KOICA 국제개발협력센터 ODA 연구실, 개발정책학 박사

토론

15:15-15:45

15:45-17:45

17:45-18:00

휴식 세션2 : 효과적인 개발협력을 위한 부산파트너십 이행전략: 이스탄불원칙과 시민사회의 개발효과성을 위한 여건조성을 중심으로 사회 : 남부원 KCOC 국제위원장/ KoFID 운영위원장 토론  이경신, KCOC 대외협력팀장  Daxing ZHAO, 중국 CANGO 사무차장  Akio TAKAYANAGI, 일본 JANIC 정책자문  Urantsooj GOMBOSUREN, 몽고 CHRD 대표 종합 및 폐회

3. Organizers KCOC is a national Platform of development NGOs of Korea,

consisting

implementing

development

member and

organizations humanitarian

assistance. KCOC was established in 1999 with the initiative of 30 NGOs working in international development. In order to facilitate overseas aid project of development NGOs, KCOC actively promotes a variety of activities, including information sharing among our member organizations, capacity-building programs for NGOs and their staff, research projects regarding development NGOs, and advocacy.

Korea Civil Society Forum on International Development Cooperation(KoFID) is a network of Korean civil society organizations

working

make

development

cooperation more effective. KoFID was established on 29 September 2010 through consultations among civil society organizations engaged in service delivery, public awareness building and capacity building, and policy advocacy. KoFID is a member of BetterAid Cooperation Group(BACG) and Global Facilitation Group(GFG) of Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness. It served as a local host of the Global Civil Society Forum which was held in Busan on last November prior to the OECD 4th High-level Forum on Aid Effectiveness

3. 주관단체 소개 한국해외원조단체협의회(KCOC, Korea NGO Council for Overseas Cooperation)는 지구촌 곳곳에서 긴급구호 및 개발원조사업을 하는 한국개발NGO의 협의체로써, 개발 NGO간의 정보공유와 협력관계를 통해 해외원조사업이 효율적으로 수행될 수 있도록 노력하고 있습니다. 주요 사업으로는 해외봉사단 파견, 개발 NGO실무자 및 단체 역량강화, 해외원조 에 대한 조사연구와 외국NGO및 국제기구와의 교류협력사업을 전개하고 있으며 우리 국민이 지구촌 문제에 지속적인 관심을 갖고 동참하는 성숙한 세계시민이 될 수 있도록 국제개발협력교육을 진행하고 있습니다.

국제개발협력 시민사회포럼(KoFID, Korea Civil Society Forum on International Development Cooperation)은 효과적인 국제개발협력을 위한 한국 시민사회단체의 네 트워크로 2010년 9월 창립되었습니다. KoFID는 시민사 회단체 내 소통과 협력 증진 및 정책 어드보커시 역량 강화에 힘쓰고 있으며 동 시에 국제 개발단체와 연대하고 있습니다. KoFID는 회원단체와의 협력을 통해 정부 개발협력 정책 수립과 실행을 모니터하 고 정책개선 권고 및 대안제시를 통해 개발협력 정책에 시민사회단체와 사회적 약자의 목소리가 반영되도록 노력하고 있습니다. 또한 시민사회단체 및 시민들을 위한 교육 및 훈련 프로그램을 제공하고 있습니다. KoFID는 국제적으로 BetterAid Coordinating Group(BACG)와 Global Facilitation Group(GFG) of Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness에 한국 시민사회 를 대표하여 참여하고 있고 부산 세계개발원조총에 전에 열린 세계시민사회포럼 (2011년 11월 26-28일)을 공동 주최하였습니다.

4. List of Speakers and Profile яБо List of Speakers Organization

Name

Nationality

JANIC

Japan

Mr.

Akio TAKAYANAGI

JANIC

Japan

Mr.

Masaaki OHASHI

CANGO

China

Mr.

Daxing ZHAO

Centre for Human Right and Development

Mongolia

Ms.

Urantsooj GOMBOSUREN

KCOC

Korea

Mr.

Young-kee MOON

KOICA

Korea

Mr.

Yun-gil JEONG

Global Civil Sharing

Korea

Mr.

Hyun-ju CHO

UNDP

Mr.

Artemy IZMESTIEV

KoFID/KCOC

Korea

Mr.

Anselmo LEE

ODAWATCH

Korea

Ms.

Ji-young YUN

Lotus World Korea

Korea

Ms.

Jung-hee MIN

KDI

Korea

Mr.

Victor W.C. HSU

KOICA

Korea

Ms.

So-jin Lim

KoFID/KCOC

Korea

Mr.

Boo-won NAM

KCOC

Korea

Ms.

Faye LEE

 Profile of Speakers Akio TAKAYANAGI, Policy Advisor, JANIC Mr. Akio TAKAYANAGI is the Policy Advisor of the JAPAN NGO Center for International Cooperation (JANIC) on aid effectiveness issue. And Professor, Department of Global and Inter-cultural Studies, Ferris University. Occupation 1990 –1993: Part-time Staff, Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation (JANIC) 1993 –1995: Assistant Professor, Department of International Relations, Kitakyushu University 1995 –2002: Associate Professor, Department of International Relations, Kitakyushu University 2002 - Professor, Department of Global and Inter-cultural Studies, Ferris University - Currently also teaching part-time at Aoyama Gakuin University - Currently Policy Advisor on Aid Effectiveness, JANIC - Also taught part-time at the following universities: Kyushu University, Fukuoka University of Education, University of Nagasaki, Hosei University Graduate School, Meiji Gakuin University Contact

t-akio@msj.biglobe.ne.jp

Telephone

+81-3-5292-2911

Address

5th Floor Avaco Building, 2-3-18 Nishiwaseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, JAPAN

Masaaki OHASHI, Chairperson, JANIC Mr. Masaaki OHASHI is the Chairperson of the JAPAN NGO Center for International Cooperation (JANIC), a Vice-Chairperson of “Shapla Neer＝Citizens' Committee in Japan for Overseas Support” & Japan NPO Center, and a Professor of International Development Studies, NGO Studies and South Asia Studies of Keisen University. He was born in 1953 in Japan. Professor Ohashi Masaaki received his B.A in Economics from Waseda University, Tokyo Japan in 1978, Advanced Diploma in Hindi, Central Institute of Hindi, New Delhi, India in 1981 and Master of Professional Studies (Agriculture), International Agriculture & Rural Development Program in 1990 from Cornell University, New York, USA. Professor Ohashi worked with “Shapla Neer＝Citizens' Committee in Japan for Overseas Support” from 1980.He also spent two and a half years in Dhaka as the Director of Shapla Neer's operations in Bangladesh, and acted as Secretary General from 1982-1987. He became Deputy Head of Delegation and Development Delegate in Bangladesh for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in 1990-1993. He became university professor since 1993. At the same time, he participated in the Kosovo refugee relief operation in Albania as a delegate of the International Federation of Red Cross and Crescent Societies. Contact

ohashi@keisen.ac.jp

Telephone

+81-3-5292-2911

Address

5th Floor Avaco Building, 2-3-18 Nishiwaseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, JAPAN

Daxing ZHAO, Deputy Executive Director, CANGO Mr. Daxing ZHAO Graduated from China Agriculture University with a background of agriculture and got his Master Degree of Public Administration in School of Administration and Economic, Beijing Institute of Technology, Mr. Zhao has been working with CANGO-a non-profit organization over than 10 years. Mr. Zhao mainly takes responsibility for programs at CANGO including program initiatives, fund raising, monitoring, evaluation etc covering poverty reduction, environment protection, rights protection for migrants, gender and development, vocational training, political participation and so on. In recent years he has also participated on various conference/workshops on issue of climate change, effective development partnership, peace building, gender equality etc. For example,

he was

elected as a member of Global Facilitation Group of Open Forum, board member of Asia Pacific Research Network, country director of Rights Protection and Job Promotion for Migrant Women Program. Contact

daxing@cango.org

Telephone

+86-1-64097888-201

Address

C-601, East Building, Yonghe Plaza, 28# Andingmen Dongdajing Beijing 100007, P.R.China

Urantsooj GOMBOSUREN, Chairperson, Centre for Human Rights and Development (CHRD) Ms. Urantsooj Gombosuren Obtained Ph.D

Educated from the Odessa State University, Ukraine in 1977.

in Microbiology from Kiev Research Institute of Microbiology and Virology in 1987

and LLM in Human Rights Law from Hong Kong University in 2002. Started working in NGOs since 1996. Established a human rights NGO called Centre for Human Rights and Development in 1998. Since then works for this organization. Main issues of concern: establishing adequate legal protection for victims of human trafficking; appropriate legal framework for public interest strategic litigation; improving policies and laws on public participation,

environmental protection, democratization of development processes;

facilitation in organizing and capacity building of CSOs, community based organizations in demanding environmental justice and equal opportunity to benefit from development; monitoring state obligations on protection and promotion of human rights; independence and institutional development of Mongolian civil society. Mrs.Urantsooj Gombosuren was a member of joint drafting group on State concept of cooperation with civil society organizations. Contact

gurantsooj@rocketmail.com

Telephone

+976-11-325721

Address

Liberty Square 2/1, Chingeltei distrect 6th khoroo, Ulaanbaatar 211238, Mongolia

Hyun-ju CHO, Secretary General , Global Civil Sharing, KOREA Mr. Hyun-ju CHO is currently Secretary General of Global Civic Sharing(GCS) of Korea. He has BA in Veterinary Medicine from the Seoul University and MA in Veterinary Surgery from the Kangwon National University Graduate School, Korea. Previously he as manager worked for Global Civic Sharing of Area Development Program of Mongolia(2002.2-2011.10) to support the income generation and build up their capacity. He also served as manager of Agriculture Development Program for Korean Development Association in Bangladesh(KDAB)(1995.9-1999.10) after working as worker of KDAB(1993.3-1995.9). Contact

solonga21@gmail.com

Telephone

+82-2-747- 7044

IZMESTIEV, Policy Specialist, UNDP Seoul Policy Centre Mr. Artemy Izmestiev works as Policy Specialist in the UNDP Seoul Policy Centre for Global Development Partnerships. He works on research, policy dialogue and sharing Korea’s development experience with developing

countries to help them in their own efforts to cut poverty and ensure

sustainable human development through UNDP networks. Artemy has worked for sustainable human development with UNDP for over eight years, supporting the coordination and management of development assistance in a number of countries in Africa, Eastern Europe and CIS and the Arab States. His previous posting was with UNDP in Tajikistan, where he served as aid coordination specialist. He has also worked with the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning in Ghana on preparations for the Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Accra in 2008. His work has focused on the development of aid policies, joint development assistance programmes and in promoting knowledge exchange for development results between developing countries. Artemy has MA in Economics from the Moscow State University and MA in European Studies from the Institute of European Studies “Alcide de Gasperi” in Rome, Italy. Contact

artemy.izmestiev@undp.org

Anselmo LEE, Executive Director, Korea Human Rights Foundation (KHRF) Mr. Anselmo LEE is currently Executive Director of the Korea Human Rights Foundation (KHRF) and Director of the Policy Center of the Korea NGO Council for Overseas Cooperation (KCOC). He is also co-chair of International Committee of the KoFID (Korea Civil Society Forum on International Development Cooperation). Internationally he is a Board member of CIVICUS, World Alliance of Citizen Participation as representative of the Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Participation for Participatory Democracy (PSPD).

He has been

actively involved in the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP)-Korea since 2010 He has been teaching about global governance, civil society, human rights and development at Graduate School of NGOs Studies at the Kyunghee University and Sungkonhoe University. Previously he as civil servant worked for the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) as Director General in charge of policy and education (2008.4-2010.3). He also served as Executive Director of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), a Bangkok-based regional human right NGO (2005-2008.4) after working in Geneva for 8 years (1997-2004) as Secretary General of International Catholic Movement for Intellectual and Cultural Affairs (ICMICA)Pax Romana, global network of Catholic professionals and intellectuals committed to social justice and peace. He was also involved with the Conference of NGOs in Consultative Status with the UN (CoNGO) as Chair of the Working Group on Asia (2000-2002) and Vice-President (2002-2004) Contact

Alee7080@gmail.com

Telephone

+82-10- 4293- 0707

Ji-yong YUN, Policy and Planning Manager, ODA Watch Ms. Ji-Young YUN began her work in the development arena in 2007 and managed works related to the management and coordination of development projects.

Since 2009, She has served

as manager of ODA Watch which is a policy advocacy CSO in Korea. ODA Watch is the only CSO in Korea focusing exclusively on monitoring and lobbying for poverty eradication policies and practices of Korean government. We work on reforming aid policies and practices and make efforts to build capacities for advocacy of Korean development CSOs. Contact

odawatch@naver.com

Telephone

+82-2-518-0705

Address

Nuvo Bldg. 4F, Seogyo-Dong 376-2, Mapo-Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 121-894

Jung-hee Min, Manager of Project Development Team, Lotus World Korea Ms. Jung-hee Min is the Manager of Project Development Team at a Korean NGO, the Lotus World which is working on educational and vocational training programs for the children and youths in Cambodia and Myanmar, and Bangladesh indigenous Jumma refugee rehabilitation programs in South Korea. She engaged in setting up Socially Engaged Buddhist Forum in East Asia with Korean, Japanese and Taiwanese Buddhist groups and participated in its 1st Forum held in Tokyo, Japan in 2003 in order to discuss different social and religious issues such as poverty, suicide, gender inequality, reform of religious bodies, etc and seek alternatives and Buddhistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; role in the respective societies. From 2002 to 2005 she worked as the Director of Department of International Relations in a Buddhist group, Buddhist Solidarity for Reform which was working on the issues of reform of religious community and religious freedom, and cooperation among different religious activists in Korea while strengthening international solidarity among socially engaged Buddhists in the world. She contributed to organizing the Conference of International Network of Engaged Buddhists (INEB) held in Seoul in 2003. She worked at the Korean Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Associations United as a coordinator in its Committee of the Policy and Labor in 1999 and organized several advocacy activities related to the issues of Family Headship System and irregular woman workers. Contact

mujin21@gmail.com

So-jin Lim, Researcher of ODA Research Office, KOICA Dr. Sojin Lim is currently working for the Korea International Development Agency (KOICA) as a researcher at ODA Research Office. In KOICA, she has conducted research projects on the issues of aid effectiveness and development effectiveness, the Busan Global Partnership, and the Post-2015 Development Framework. She also has a various work experience in international organizations, research institutions, academic institutions, in NGOs, and in the private sector. She has a PhD degree in Development Policy from the University of Manchester. Contact

sjlim@koica.go.kr

Telephone

+82-31-740-0512

Victor W.C. HSU, Director of International Aid and Education, School of Public Policy and Management KDI Mr. Victor Hsu is currently Visiting Professor at the Korea Development Institute School of Public Policy and Management and Director of International Development Assistance and Education. While at KDI, he has given several presentations about the role of NGOs in impact evaluation, and in ODA. He moderated seminars jointly sponsored by KDI, the Asia Development Bank and the World Bank.

He also chaired a side event at the HLF-4 in Busan.

He was the Country Director of the DPRK for World Vision International from 2005 to 2010 and was involved in North Korea famine relief from the outset since 1996.

He set up the Food Aid Liaison

Unit of the World Food Programme in the DPRK and served as chair of its NGO Steering Committee. He was a board member of the USA PVOC-Consortium that monitored USA's contribution to the WFP Programme, and a member of the Leadership Council of the 2008-09 US Government food aid to the DPRK. Between 2000 and 2005, he was Senior Advisor to the CEO of Church World Service and liaison to the White House, the Congressional leadership and the Office of the UN Secretary General. From 1976 to 1987 Hsu directed the United Nations programme of the World Council of Churches representing the WCC on the board of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) in Consultative Status with the UN and serving as CONGO's Vice-President and First Vice-President. During this time, he was in constant contact with the office of the Secretary General and the Presidents of the UN General Assembly sessions. He provided private briefings to the leadership of US Congress on both DPRK and religious freedom in China. He was an official observer to the Philippine Peace Talks and has been received by several heads of states and governments, and well-known diplomats around the world. Following the tsunami catastrophe, he was invited by the National Christian Council in Japan to set up its Disaster Response Office in June 2011. He was awarded the Voice of America 2008 Humanitarian Worker and recognized by his Alma Mater as a Distinguished Alumnus in Professional Accomplishment. Contact

victorhsu62011@gmail.com

Boo-won NAM, Chair of International Committee of KCOC, Chair of Steering Committee of KoFID Mr. Boo-won NAM is presently General Secretary, National Council of YMCAs of Korea. He studied political science (B.A.) in Yonsei University, Seoul, and later global ethics in Birmingham University, UK as his MA. For the past 27 years, he has served YMCA as professional staff at many levels: Seoul YMCA, National Council of YMCAs of Korea, Asia and Pacific Alliance of YMCAs, and Gwangju YMCA recently. At present, he holds positions in civil society such as co-representative of Korean CSO Network and of Civic Peace Forum; Board member of the National Council of Consumer Organizations; Board member and Chair of International Committee of KCOC; Chair of Operation Committee, KOFID. He wrote a couple of thesis and essays on civil society and its movement including his MA dissertation "How strengthening global civil society could contribute to realizing cosmopolitan democracy". Contact

namboowon@gmail.com

Faye (Kyong shin) LEE, Program Manager, Korea NGO Council for Overseas Cooperation Ms. Lee has about 15 years of experience with relief and development NGO sector. She has been working as program manager of Korea NGO Council for Overseas Cooperation (KCOC) since 2008, managing various programs that KCOC operates such as network coordination at national and international level, capacity building programs for NGO workers, and humanitarian assistance coordination, policy advocacy. Before joining KCOC, she worked in Korea Food for the Hungry as well as Food for the Hungry International. She has a MSc degree in HRM from Institute of Development Policy and Management in the University of Manchester, UK. She has led the national consultation process of Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness in Korea and actively engaged in promoting Istanbul Principles among CSOs in Korea and Asia region. Contact

flee@ngokcoc.or.kr

5. Profile of Overseas Organization JANIC Full Name Website Telephone Address Email Year established

Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation http://www.janic.org/en 03-5292-2911 5th Floor Avaco Building, 2-3-18 Nishiwaseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, global-citizen@janic.org 1987

Region/countries/territories Japan Our goal is to achieve a global society where people are liberated from hunger, poverty and violation of human rights, where people live in harmony with nature, where people are assured of equal and fair Vision opportunities for participation in deciding directions for their society, and where people mutually respect diverse cultures and values, while living together To promote networking and collaborative activities among citizensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; organizations (NGOs) engaged in international cooperation. To facilitate collective action by its members and wider Japanese civil society to influence the policies and practice of governments and institutions at domestic and international levels. Mission

To strengthen the institutional capability of NGOs in carrying out their missions. To disseminate information and knowledge concerning people's living conditions in developing regions of the world and the impact of the publicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s way of life on these people. To enlighten the general public on the role of NGOs and encourage them to participate in NGO activities in any form.

CANGO Full Name Website Telephone Address Email Year established

The China Association for NGO Cooperation http://www.cango.org/english 86-10-64097888 C-601, East Building, Yonghe Plaza, 28# Andingmen Dongdajie, Beijing, 100007, P.R.China info@cango.org 1992

Region/countries/territories Asia, China Vision

CANGO's vision is to empower citizens and civil society to create an environment that offers fair chances to everybody for sustainable development.

Mission

CANGO's mission is to create a strong, empowered network of Chinese NGOs to address poverty alleviation, environmental protection and social development, particularly in China's poor, remote and minority-inhabited areas.

Object

CANGO acts as an intermediary agency and partners with foreign NGOs, bilateral and multilateral organizations and Chinese NGOs to enhance fundraising, provision of technical support and capacity building of grassroots NGOs in China.

CHRD Full Name Website Telephone Address Email Year established

Centre for Human Rights and Development (CHRD)

www.chrd.org.mn (976) 11-325721, (976) 11-319037 Liberty Square 2/1, Chingeltei distrect , 6th khoroo, Ulaanbaatar 211238, Mongolia chrd@mongolnet.mn 1998

Region/countries/territories Mongolia

Vision

For every person to have the opportunity to participate actively and freely in the development process for establishing a democratic and humane society, gaining just benefits through having the knowledge and capacity to enjoy and claim human rights and freedoms

Object

Centre for Human Rights and Development (CHRD) is a NGO, registered under the Mongolian NGO law in the Ministry of Justice and Internal Affair in 1998. Since then it has implemented numerous projects within its three main programs: Combating crime of human trafficking, Strategic human rights advocacy, Community based development. CHRD implements projects on research, monitoring, training, provides legal assistance, runs Public Interest Law Clinic. It contributes in improvement of laws, implementation mechanisms, structures and sets up procedures for better legal service to disadvantaged people. CHRD has leading role in organizing Mongolian CSOs for drafting joint submissions and shadow reports on implementation of the UN human rights instruments. CHRD has organized a national CSO Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness and a National multi-stakeholder forum on Aid/Development Effectiveness. It hosts a Working group of the CSO Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness and on Aid/Development Effectiveness.

The 3rd Seoul Civil Society Forum (SCSF)

Presentation Papers

The 3rd Seoul Civil Society Forum (SCSF)

Session1. Post-Busan Global Development Agendas and Challenges for North East Asia

Session 1 Post-Busan Global Development Agenda and Challenges for North East Asia

Challenges and Opportunities of the Global Partnership and Post 2015 Artemy Izmestiev,, UNDP Seoul Policyy Centr Centre re Seoul, September 2012

From Monterrey to Busan “We recognise that a substantial increase in ODA (Overseas Development Assistance) and other resources will be required if developing countries are to achieve the internationally agreed development goals and objectives, including those contained in the Millennium Declaration. To build support for ODA, we will cooperate to further improve policies and development strategies, both nationally and internationally, to enhance aid effectiveness.” “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”.

Core Functions of the Global Partnership • Maintain and strengthen political momentum for more effective development cooperation; • Ensure accountability for implementing Busan commitments; • Facilitate knowledge exchange and sharing of lessons learned; and • Support implementation of Busan commitments at the country level.

Global Indicators 1

Development co-operation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities

Civil society operates within an environment which maximizes its engagement in and contribution to development;

Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development;

Transparency: information on development co-operation is publicly available;

Development co-operation is more predictable;

Aid is on budgets which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny;

Mutual accountability among development co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews;

Gender equality and women’s empowerment;

Effective institutions: developing countries’ systems are strengthened and used;

10 Aid is untied.

Core Structures of the Global Partnership Global Partnership • Ministerial level; • Meeting every 18-24 months.

Steering Committee • Agenda-setting; • Ambassadors of Global Partnership.

Joint OECD-UNDP Support • Demand-based capacity support; • Linkages with relevant processes.

What’s new? • • • •

Country focus + High-level political support; Light and open platform; Indicator framework: 5 old + 5 new indicators; Reliance on existing national monitoring processes; • Qualitative methodology; • Decentralized work through “building blocks”.

Challenges • How to engage the non-DAC donors; • How to avoid bias in qualitative assessment and ensure analytical rigor (despite flexibility of the monitoring framework); • How to ensure accountability (how to identify high and low performers); • How to ensure adequate outreach (to countries that are not active parts of the process, to other stakeholders); • Capacity to deliver (by all stakeholders).

Opportunities (for CSOs) • Transparency opens new avenues for research and advocacy; • Scope of partnership beyond ODA: allowing CSOs to conduct advocacy work on broader policy issues; • Building blocks with voluntary memberships; • Regional initiatives (e.g. African Platform on Development Effectiveness); • Knowledge sharing and knowledge hubs;

Opportunities (for CSOs) (cont.) • Seoulite style: focus on country level; • Active participation of all stakeholders is important in identifying useful ways to monitor commitments and share progress made against commitments agreed in Busan; • Complementarity with other global conversations around development effectiveness, including UN processes – particularly the Development Cooperation Forum and Financing for Development.

Thank you! • undp.org/uspc • Facebook.com/UNDPSPC Twitter: @UNDPSPC

Session 1 Post-Busan Global Development Agenda and Challenges for North East Asia 2012 Seoul Civil Society Forum (SCSF) on Aid and Development Effectiveness

A Personal Proposal of Strategies for Effective International Cooperation among CSOs in Northeast Asia OHASHI Masaaki Chairperson, JANIC on Sept. 21, 2012

Contents 1. About JANIC and other NGO networks in JAPAN 2. Inventory of Major Issues and NGO Networking 3. Categorization of Networks and North-East Asia 4. Desired Principles for Networking 5. Personal Proposal for Effective NGO Network in Northeast Asia

1. About JANIC: Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation  JANIC is the largest NGO network with 97 NGO members out of 400 NGOs in Japan  3 pillars of activities 1) Research/Advocacy on Global issues and ODA policies 2) Promotion of the Understanding on NGOs and Cooperation with other sectors 3) Capacity Building and Strengthening of Social Responsibility of NGOs

■Collaborate with other national networks, such as KCOC(Korea), InterAction 3 (USA) etc.. 3

Other NGO Networks in Japan 1. Local Networks (地域ネットワーク） ‐Kansai NGO Council (関西NGO協議会） ‐Nagoya NGO Center (名古屋NGOセンター） ‐Fukuoka NGO Network (福岡NGOネットワーク）

‐Yokohama NGO Network (横浜NGOネットワーク, etc.

2. Issue Based Networks (課題別ネットワーク） ‐Japan Platform (JPF):funding mechanism for emergency humanitarian aid with GOJ & business sector (Keidanren) - Japan NGO Network for Education (JNNE) for Education, etc. 3. Country-Wise NGO Networks (国別ネットワーク)；Nepal, Cambodia 4

2. Inventory of Major Dev. Issues and NGO Networking Leading NGO/Network

Issue

(ODA)

Notes Previously Better Aid Open Forum ⇒CPDE

Development Effectiveness Istanbul Principles (NGOs)

Post MDGs Development Frame

(JANIC)

Ex-PM of Jpn, Kan is UN member, UNGS in 13?

???

Report to UNGS in 13 by experts

SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) Poverty Alleviation

Health

Education

???

7 8

Disaster/Humanitarian Assistance Least Developed Countries

Taiwan AID Dev.) LDC Watch

Food Security

Access to Natural Resources

National NGO Platforms' Coalition of VANI(Voluntary Action Network Asia(NPCOA), CONCORD, SANGOCO India), CONCORD, SANGOCO (South African National NGO Coalition ) & Coordination SUD(France) International Forum of National Platforms (IFP)

Civil Society

＆ KoFID/KCOC

GCAP Peoples Movement(PHM)/ Assembly

ANGOC(Asian Agrarian

Health

World Education Forum by UNESCO in 2000 (Alliance in Int’l Since 90s with Japanese NGOs

NGO Reform &

Coalition for Rural Dev.),

SANSAD(South Asian Network for Social & Agri. Dev.)

CIVICUS

Anselmo(PSPD)

3. Categorization of Networks and North-East Asia Global

Regional

General

CIVICUS, IFP

CONCORD,

Issue/ Topic Wise

BA/OF(CPDE), GCAP, PHM, LDC Watch

NPCOA

Sub-Regional

NE Asia

SANGOCO (South African National NGO Coalition )

Vacant SANSAD, ANGOC

ANGOC, SANSAD

- There are Global, Regional, and Sub-Regional network spaces. - There are General and Issue/Topic-wise networks. - It is clear that there are less, if not at all, networks in our North-East Sub-Region. (in Peace Sector, Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) and its North East Secretariat exists)

Desired Principles for Networking



Based on common values, such as universal human rights, civil society as independent entity, and so on.



Based on common needs of members



Preferably supported by financial & other resources for its sustainability



Based on mutual trusts, recognizing differences/ different contexts

5. Personal Proposal for Effective NGO Network in Northeast Asia 

If possible, strengthen existing networks (NE Asia has nil).



For establishing a new network, start from a loose one mainly for sharing information and for building mutual trusts.



Have a clear purpose(s)/mandate(s).



Define who are members of the network.



In case a multi-lateral action is difficult, promote a bi-lateral action, trying to involve other members.



Gradually consolidate the network, if all members feel the concrete need of it.

Thank you for listening.

At the venue of â&#x20AC;&#x153;Peoples Summitâ&#x20AC;? on the occasion of Rio+20 Meeting in Rio de Janeiro with a Indigenous Person of Amazon who are concerning the future of the Earth

Session 1 Post-Busan Global Development Agenda

and Challenges for North East Asia

Civil Society Response to Busan Global Partnership 2012.9.21 Anselmo LEE KoFID / KCOC alee7080@gmail.com

Contents 1. What is the GPEDC? 2. Key Elements on CSOs at BPEDC 3. Global Civil Society in the Post-Busan Processes 4. Asian CSOs Responses 5. Challenges and Tasks

1. What is GPEDC ?

OECD HLF on AE process HLF-4

Istanbul Principles on CSO Devâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t effectiveness

Busan Nov 29Dec 1, 2011

HLF-3 HLF-2

Dili Declaration on Fragile States

HLF-1 Accra Action Agenda

Monterrey Consensus

2002

Bogota Statement on SSC

Paris Declaration Rome on Aid Declaration on Effectiveness Harmonisation

2003

2005

2010 2008

2011

1. GPEDC • GPEDC is the official institutional outcome of the Busan HLF-4 on Aid Effectiveness : Para. 36 of the BPEDC. “new, inclusive and representative GPEDC” “an open platform that embraces diversity, providing a forum for the exchange of knowledge and the regular review of progress” (para 36-a)

• Proposed by the PBIG and accepted by the OECD DAC WP on Aid Effectiveness in Paris on 28-29 June 2012.

1. GPEDC Structure and Working Arrangements 1) Ministerial level meetings: 18-24 months 2) 18 Steering Committee members including 3 Co-Chairs (UK, Indonesia, Nigeria); 



9 (5:1:3) recipients and providers of development, MDB, UNDP/UNDG, OECD/DAC, private sector, parliamentarians and CSO. Observer seats (local government, trade unions)

3) Secretariat : UNDP and OECD 4) Global Monitoring Framework: 10 Indicators

1. GPEDC 10 Indicators 1. Development co-operation is focused on results that meet developing countries’ priorities . 2. Civil society operates within an environment that maximises its engagement in and contribution to development 3. Engagement and contribution of the private sector to development 4. Transparency: information on development co-operation is publicly available 5a. Development co-operation is more predictable (annual predictability) 5b. Development co-operation is more predictable (medium-term predictability) 6. Aid is on budgets which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny Indicator 7. Mutual accountability among co-operation 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

2. Key Elements on CSOs at BPEDC Para 1: “We, Heads of State, … representatives of different types of public, civil society, … “ Para 12-a): democratic ownership Para 11-a), 25-b), 35-a) mutual accountability Para 22: CSOs play a vital role in… Para 36: “new, inclusive and representative GPEDC”

2. BPEDC Para 22 22. Civil society organisations (CSOs) play a vital role 1) 2) 3)

in enabling people to claim their rights, in promoting rights-based approaches, in shaping development policies and partnerships, and 4) in overseeing their implementation.

They also 5) provide services in areas that are complementary to those provided by states.

Recognising this, we will:

Three Roles of CSO Human Rights (1-2) Advocacy (3-4)

Service Delivery (5)

2. BPEDC Para 22 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. b) 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.

Istanbul Principles for CSO Development Effectiveness 1. Respect and promote human rights and social justice 2. Embody gender equality and equity while promoting women and girls’ rights 3. Focus on people’s empowerment, democratic ownership and participation 4. Promote Environmental Sustainability 5. Practice transparency and accountability 6. Pursue equitable partnerships and solidarity 7. Create and share knowledge and commit to mutual learning 8. Commit to realizing positive sustainable change

3. Global Civil Society in the Post-Busan Processes Three Tracks since Busan 1) Post-Busan Interim Group (PBIG): 



GPEDC Steering Committee Indicator No 2

2) The CSO Platform for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) : Oct. 2012 

BetterAid + Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness  Cebu (Feb. 2012): G13

3) Building blocks : RBA, PPP, etc.

Post Busan Global Processes UN International UN DCF Development (Development Cooperation (IDC) Cooperation Forum) Development

Development+

• MDGs • Post-2015 Development Agenda / SDGs Rio+20

Non-UN GPEDC OECD DAC • G20 Development Working Group • OECD G20 Summit

4. Asian CSOs Responses  No single board-based regional platform for all national platforms and CSOs engaged in aid and development effectiveness.  IBON International in the Philippines as Co-Chair and Secretariat of the BetterAid.  CCC of Cambodia as host of the 2nd Global Assembly of Open Forum for Seam Reap International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness.  KoFID, KCOC and GCAP-Korea as host of the Busan Global Civil Society Forum (BSCF) prior to the Busan HLF-4.

4. Asian CSOs Responses  Two international network of national platforms or associations:  International Forum of National Platforms (IFP)  Affinity Group of National Associations (AGNA) of CIVICUS

 Seoul Civil Society Forum (SCSF) by KCOC/KoFID:  an international forum for exchange of CSO experiences in Asia specially NEA.  1st SCSF (Sept. 2011), 2nd SCSF (Feb. 2012)

5. Challenges and Tasks External Challenges 1) Multiple crisis (food, fuel, financial and climate chaos) 2) Increasing tensions due to territorial disputes and border conflicts 3) Lack of or weak regional mechanism: ‘governance gap’ 4) Weakening international norms and standards: ‘voluntary’, ‘reference’, etc. 5) ODA quantity decreased yet quality not increased 6) Expanding corporate influence : FTA, PPP, etc. 7) Shrinking democratic space : ‘development dictatorship’ – autonomy and independence of civil society 8) Alternative development practices and paradigms : ‘fair trade’ ‘ social enterprise’, ‘cooperative’, ‘appropriate technology’, ‘micro-financing’, etc.

5. Challenges and Tasks Internal Challenges 1) How to engage Asian governments: “critical yet constructive”, “Inside & outside strategies”, etc. 2) How to engage private sector and labour union: PPP 3) Strategic partnership with parliament and local government 4) Lack of sustained, equitable and effective international cooperation mechanisms and strategies among CSOs “Globally Facilitated, Regionally Coordinated, Nationally Initiated, Locally Rooted” 5) Rights-based approach (RBA) 6) CSO Development Effectiveness: Accountability and ‘code of conduct’ 7) Sustainable Financing for CSO

The 3rd Seoul Civil Society Forum (SCSF)

Session2. Implementation Strategies of Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation with focus on Istanbul Principles and enabling environment

Guiding Questions 1) What were most significant achievements of the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (BPEDC) from CSO perspective in your own country? 2) What is your assessment of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC)? 3) What has been done to implement the Istanbul Principles within CSO communities in your own country? 4) What kinds of actions were taken with regard to enabling environment (EE) for CSO development effectiveness? 5) What kinds of suggestions to enhance cooperation among CSOs in Northeast?

1) Significant Achievement of BPEDC  Inclusive partnership  Roles of CSOs  RBA  Democratic ownership

Involvement of Private sector  Paradigm shift

2) Assessment of GPEDC Inclusive multi-stakeholder partnership Collaboration between OECD & UNDP Global light Country focused Accountability mechanism-indicators

Voluntary commitment Shifting responsibility Unfinished business of PD

3) Implementing Istanbul Principles  Translation and Publishing of

– Pamphlet on CSO DE - Siem Reap International Consensus - Implementation and Advocacy Toolkit  Training Workshop – Toolkit workshop (KCOC/KOFID) - Advocacy Strategy workshop (ODA Watch) - On-site workshop on IP in Laos (KCOC)



Main Activities on Selected IPs Principle 1: Respect & promote human rights and social justice - Introduction to RBA course (KOICA/KHRF) - RBA specialist course (KHRF) Principle 4: Promote environmental sustainability - Appropriate Technology Seminars (GNI) -Appropriate Technology camp (GNI) - Participation in Rio+20 Principle 5: Practice transparency and accountability - Forum on Transparency & Accountability (KCOC) - NGO CEO workshop on Accountability (KCOC) - Publishing Sphere handbook 2011 (KCOC) - Sphere

Training and TOT (KCOC)

4) Actions taken for EE  CSOs (KCOC, KoFID) contribution to GPEDC National

Implementation Plan (Aug. 2012)  CSOs submission to OECD Peer Review  Increased policy dialogues between CSOs and related government agencies (PMO, MOFAT, KOICA, etc.)  New policies by KOICA - New funding scheme for small & medium size CSOs - Direct funding support for local CSOs in partner countries - Multi-year grant for CSOs

But attitude does matter here

5)Suggestions for NEA cooperation  Peer learning and capacity building network 

  

among CSOs on IP and EE. Collective voice on issues at various international networks and platfoms Common advocacy strategies at the NEA level about international EE Coordinated monitoring of NEA governments performance at international level Coordinated monitoring of the progress regarding GPEDE indicators and EE

Together make it happen!

The 3rd Seoul Civil Society Forum Implementation Strategies of Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation with focus on Istanbul Principles and enabling environment Seoul, Korea/21 September 2012

China Association for NGO Cooperation

1. What are the most significant achievements? 1.law and registration regular improved, 2.Government acknowledge the role of CSOs and provide public service contract for CSOs,

2. What are the most significant achievements? 3.CSOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s have been increasing their capacity on policy advocacy, self governance, environment media campaign, 4.CSOs are Setting up strategy for their sustainable development through partnership building.

What are the most significant achievements? by Salon, workshop, seminar, media campaign, training and etc.

CEDN, China Effective Development Network, was established on 2009, aims to promote partnership among CSOs, government, company and academy for a effective and sustainable development.

Global partnership for effective development cooperation It is a good concept accepted by government, CSOs and other development stakeholders; Economy cooperation more closely, International aid architecture changed with focus on global partnership for effective development cooperation,

More voices from southern CSOs, regional caucus and national platform.

3-4. What CSOs has done in China? Voices for vulnerable groups, Policy advocacy, Promotion for a sound environment, Partnership with different stakeholders, Community based programs.

3-4. Activities April, watch dog reports on company behavior regarding environment issues, May, the International Conference on Civil Society Contribution to Policy Innovation in China, July, Multi Local Women’s Partnership against Poverty June, Review of China’s Sustainable Development 1992 – 2011: A perspective from Chinese civil society Sept., Forum on government information open and transparent, take environment as an example

5. Suggestions to enhance cooperation among CSOs in Northeast Asia

1.Set up a platform for northeast Asia is necessary such as SCSF, given the big population, fast economic development, environment issues, political diversity and many conflicts, 2.CSOs could have their own voices for this regional development cooperation, 3.Enhance close relationship and cooperation,

Suggestions to enhance cooperation among CSOs in Northeast Asia

4.A communication strategy is needed, 5.Trail programs, for example on capacity building, research, workshop and seminars could be helpful for regional CSOs integration, 6. More coordination for regional and global CSO events.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES OF BUSAN PARTNERSHIP FOR EFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION WITH FOCUS ON ISTANBUL PRINCIPLES AND ENABLING ENVIRONMENT: CHALLENGES FOR CSOS IN JAPAN Akio Takayanagi Policy Advisor, JANIC (Professor, Ferris University) ＊Views expressed in this presentation are those of the presenter and do not necessarily represent those of JANIC.

1. Reviewing Busan • FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE

Growth-oriented and corporate-led vision versus Rights-Based Approach • CSOs Proposals: What were met or partially met?  Democratic Ownership  Transparency and Accountability  Recognition of CSOs as actors on their own rights and Istanbul Principles/Siem Reap Consensus

1. Reviewing Busan • CSO Proposals: Things mentioned, with no concrete or

satisfactory commitments  Gender equality  Decent work  Predictability of aid; Untying of aid; • CSO Proposals: Outcomes unsatisfactory for CSOs  Rights-based approaches: only mentioned as a role for CSOs  Private sector: contradictory views

2. Challenges for Post-Busan Advocacy Works Regarding Japan’s ODA Policy • Continued commitments on effective

development co-operation agenda (GoJ’s decreased enthusiasm?) • Rights-based Approaches: (Little understandings among Japan’s aid bureaucracy!!) • Transparency (has opposed IATI) • Predictability • Untying

3. Implementing the Istanbul Principles

3. Implementing the Istanbul Principles • JANIC’s focus on the three principles 1. Respect and promote human rights and social justice 2. Embody gender equality and equity while promoting women and girls’ rights 6. Pursue equitable partnerships and solidarity • Has twice organized workshops after Busan

• Challenges Faced  Uneasy feelings among Japanese CSOs on “imported principles”  Human Rights/RBAs: lack of common understandings; alien to Japanese values?  Disseminating IPs among the CSOs in Japan: especially small groups and groups outside the three metropolitan areas  Starting with “good practices” already meeting IPs could be a way forward.

4. Enabling Environment for CSOs in Japan • Social and Economic Context: • Socio-cultural Environment: Weak civil society tradition +

emergence of “uncivil society” • Political Context: Freedom of association and expression have been OK, but substantially? • Governance Context: Has the bureaucrats’ attitudes towards civil society changed? • Legal and Regulatory Framework: Used to be extraordinarily bad (until 1998 enactment of the NPO Act, few CSOs were able to get legal status). Future of the law and how it is implemented

5. Possible Cooperation among CSOs in Northeast Asia (personal view) • CSOs working on global development issue: “something new”

in NEA • Collaboration on advocacy work, but different context of the four countries  Mongolia: Among “partner countries”  China: Emerging donor, Para. 2 of BPEDC  Korea: New DAC member  Japan: Once the largest but rapidly declining donor

• Sharing Experiences on Implementation of IPs: including how

IPs could be interpreted in NEA context, while respecting the different context between the four countries • Enabling Environment: Is joint work and use of “Boomerang Pattern”* politically feasible or appropriate? *Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists beyond the Borders, Cornell Univ. Press, 1998.

Thank you very much. And I look forward to enhanced cooperation between CSO communities in Northeast Asia.

The 3rd Seoul Civil Society Forum (SCSF) Effective implementation of Busan Partnership in Northeast Asia 21 September 2012

1. Achievements of the BPEDC 1 from CSO perspective p p y Civil Society’s assessment of the BPEDC against our

CSO Key Messages and Proposals Proposals. y BetterAid/Open Forum, “CSOs on the Road to Busan: Key messages and proposals proposals”, April 2011 2011, on on-line line at http://betteraid.org/en/memberdownloads/doc download/275 csoasks html downloads/doc_download/275-csoasks.html

Achievements of the BPEDC from p p CSO perspective y What are important, at least in the beginning, for Mongolian

NGOs from BPEDC? The reason why? I would answer that: 1. Democratic D ti ownership hi off development d l t policies li i and d processes was defined as one of actions guided by the shared principles (12-a)

The reason: It gives us good vision to democratize development process; demanding whole set of legal provisions with procedures and venues for people’s participation in decision making on development priorities, planning, monitoring, evaluating and holding accountability

2. Gender equality and empowerment of women (20- a,b,c) through g improvement p of sex disaggregated gg g data, integrating g g targets for gender equality and women’s empowerment in accountability mechanisms , addressing gender equality and women’s empowerment p in all aspects p of development p efforts The reason: Despite the all requirements to assess and improve gender impact of all development projects , MDG 3 on Gender equality is one of the three g goals,, which are the most far from the targets. g Without achieving gender equality and women’s empowerment we won’t bring development results to Mongolia: eradication of poverty and ecological sustainability

Achievements of the BPEDC from p p CSO perspective 3. Enabling environment of CSOs to play their role as independent development actors to maximize their contributions to development and to strengthen their accountability implementing the IPs, IPs and the IF for CSO DE (22-a,b) The reason: Mongolian CSO lack of enabling environment although it is true that we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have prosecution or any violent acts against CSOs. The government and funding agencies donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t don t much care to build enabling environment for CSOs. However they advocate hard to build adequate legal environment for g to reform NGO law, establish their effective work. Theyy are working NGO open standing, public interest litigation etc.

Achievements of the BPEDC from CSO perspective p p 4. Making information on development cooperation available and accessible, accessible establishing transparent public financial management and aid information management systems y and capacities p of all to make better use of this information, implement a common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive and f d looking l ki information i f ti (23-a,b,c) ( b ) forward The reason: I f Information i is i not available il bl and d accessible. ibl Bil Bilaterall funding agencies ignore or refuse CSOs to provide with information. information

2. Assessment of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) y BA has issued a position towards GPEDC

on governance and d monitoring i i iindicators. di - Ministerial meetings: frequency (18-24 months), mandate d - Steering committee : frequency (6-12 months), i l i h i trade d union i inclusiveness - CSO co-chair, representative - “voluntary “ l b basis””

2. Assessment of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) y …globally light and country heavy…

“country country heavy” heavy concerns us. us It requires certain capacity, resources etc. -The The government at the moment does not talk about GPEDC - development agencies in the countryy as well p g -CSOs have not voiced much on this for public awareness raising g

3. Efforts to implement the Istanbul principles 3 within CSO communities in Mongolia g y Mongolian CSOs have been involved in the development of y y y y y y y

Istanbul principles and defining the enabling environment The country defined CSO principles and enabling environment for CSO development effectiveness are almost same Therefore there wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be anyy difficulties in understanding g or accepting the Istanbul Principles In fact many NGOs who were involved in the National Open Forum mayy implement them or most of them p However we could do only on-line information dissemination Main reason is lack of resources. The government and donors don donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;tt support such activities in Mongolia. In order to initiate we need at least some funds for translation, organizing i i a ttraining i i h how tto iimplement l t th the IP IPs etc. t

4. Actions towards enabling environment for CSO development effectiveness in Mongolia y New developments: y New laws: on access to information and law on dealing g y y y y

with conflict of interests were adopted A new parliament subcommittee on receiving citizens complaints and suggestions was set up. up Draft state concept paper on cooperation with CSOs was approved by the government and submitted to the li parliament Political parties election agendas includes promises to provide more opportunities p pp on civil participation p p A new government program includes more opportunities on civil participation: open standing for CSOs on public interest litigation

4. Actions towards enabling environment for CSO development effectiveness in Mongolia y President initiative on direct democracy at local levels: trainings y y y y

of trainers for local areas. CSOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s joint position paper on Rio + 20 and submitting it to the government delegate Organizing g g a national conference on acceding g to the Aarchus convention on the right to information , participation in decision making and access to justice on environmental matters, submission of jjoint CSO request to the Mongolian president to q g p initiate acceding to the Aarchus convention Organizing national conference on Public interest Litigation , setting g up p a working g group g p on drafting g legal g amendments for PIL. Conclusion: legal environment is improving but financial environment is not improving

5. Suggestions to enhance cooperation among CSOs in Northeast Asia y We need to cooperate in monitoring of aid projects and

programs from donor countries (China, Japan, Korea) in M Mongolia li y Sharing information and expertise on monitoring project results y Capacity p y building g on better use of information and monitoring g y Conducting coordinated advocacy : - on establishing aid information management systems at the country level level, and strengthen the capacities of all relevant stakeholders to make better use of this information and to promote accountability to people of developing and developed countries - implement a common, open standard for electronic publication of timely, comprehensive and forward looking information on sources provided through development cooperation

Th k you ffor attention! Thank tt ti !

The 3rd Seoul Civil Society Forum (SCSF)

References

Realizing the Future We Want for All Report to the Secretary-General

New York, June 2012

Following on the outcome of the 2010 High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on the Millennium Development Goals, the United Nations SecretaryGeneral established the UN System Task Team in September 2011 to support UN system-wide preparations for the post-2015 UN development agenda, in consultation with all stakeholders. The Task Team is co-chaired by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the United Nations Development Programme and brings together senior experts from over 50 UN entities and international organizations to provide system-wide support to the post-2015 consultation process, including analytical input, expertise and outreach. Cover photo: iStock photo

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

Realizing the future we want for all Summary The central challenge of the post-2015 UN development agenda is to ensure that globalization becomes a positive force for all the worlds’ peoples of present and future generations. Globalization offers great opportunities, but its benefits are at present very unevenly shared. The continuous striving for improvements in material welfare is threatening to surpass the limits of the natural resource base unless there is a radical shift towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production and resource use. Persistent inequalities and struggles over scarce resources are among key determinants of situations of conflict, hunger, insecurity and violence, which in turn are key factors that hold back human development and efforts to achieve sustainable development. Business as usual thus cannot be an option and transformative change is needed. As the challenges are highly interdependent, a new, more holistic approach is needed to address them. Accordingly, this first report prepared by the UN System-wide Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda recommends: • •

•

A vision for the future that rests on the core values of human rights, equality and sustainability. An agenda format based on concrete end goals and targets, one of the key strengths of the MDG framework should be retained, but reorganized along four key dimensions of a more holistic approach: (1) inclusive social development; (2) inclusive economic development; (3) environmental sustainability; and (4) peace and security. This focused approach is consistent with the principles of the Millennium Declaration which set out a vision of freedom from want and fear for present and future generations and builds on the three pillars of sustainable development. To realize the future we want for all, a high degree of policy coherence at the global, regional, national and sub-national

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

levels will be required. The core set of “development enablers” can be identified as a guide for such policy coherence without making the post-2015 UN development agenda a prescriptive one. In setting the agenda, it should be recognized that there are no blueprints and that one size does not fit all. Hence, the agenda should leave ample space for national policy design and adaptation to local settings, but be guided by the overall vision and its underlying principles. • The post-2015 UN development agenda should be conceived as a truly global agenda with shared responsibilities for all countries. Accordingly, the global partnership for development would also need to be redefined towards a more balanced approach among all development partners that will enable the transformative change needed for a rights-based, equitable and sustainable process of global development. This would also involve reforms of mechanisms of global governance. • It is still too early to define concrete goals and targets for the post-2015 UN development agenda. Various processes will need to run their course first. The outcome of and followup to the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development will provide critical guidance and the proposed vision and framework for the post-2015 agenda must be fully aligned with that outcome. Also, broad and inclusive consultation processes on the vision for the post-2015 agenda are still ongoing and will be essential in shaping a shared vision. The immediate challenge is to reach consensus on the contours of an agenda that adequately identifies the development needs of present and future generations, and is capable of crystallizing these priorities in clear, easy-to-communicate sustainable development goals that will help guide coherent policy action at the global, regional and national levels. This report is to serve as a first reference for the broader consultations to take place.

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

Contents Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. The transformative power of global goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 a. Reviewing the MDG framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 b. Lessons for the post-2015 UN development agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 III. Global trends, challenges and opportunities to which the post-2015 UN development agenda should respond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 a. Much progress, but â&#x20AC;&#x153;business as usualâ&#x20AC;? is not an option . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 b. Progress in poverty reduction, but major inequalities persist. . . . . . . 13 c. The knowledge challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 d. Shifting demographics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 e. Growing environmental footprints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 f. Living in an insecure world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 g. Governance and accountability deficits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 h. A need for new development pathways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 IV. Vision: the future we want for all. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 a. Transformative change towards inclusive, people-centred, sustainable development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 b. Three fundamental principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 i. Human rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 ii. Equality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 iii. Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 c. Four core dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 i. Inclusive social development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 ii. Environmental sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 iii. Inclusive economic development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 iv. Peace and security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 V. Shaping the global development agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 a. Key considerations in shaping the agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 b. Possible format of the agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 c. Reshaping the global partnership for development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 d. New time horizon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 e. Monitoring and benchmarking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 VI. The way forward: consultations to forge consensus on a post-2015 UN development agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 a. Initial guidance from Member States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 b. Proposed road map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 i. Bringing different voices into the process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 ii. Major milestones leading up to 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Annexes I. The UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda: participating entities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 II. Strengths and weaknesses of the MDG framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 III. Intergovernmental processes of relevance for post-2015 UN development agenda preparations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

iii

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

Photo Credit: iStock Photo

Introduction

1. The outcome document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on the progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), in 2010, requested the Secretary-General to make recommendations to advance the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015.1 Initial recommendations in this regard were presented in the Report of the Secretary-General on accelerating progress towards the MDGs of August 2011, with special reference to the need for an open and inclusive process of consultations on the agenda. 2

2. With this in mind, in September 2011, the Secretary-General established the UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda to coordinate system-wide preparations for the agenda, in consultation with all stakeholders. 3 The Task Team, launched in January 2012, brings together senior experts designated by the Principals of over 50 UN system entities and other international organizations. 4 The terms of reference of the Task Team include: assessing ongoing efforts within the UN system; consulting external stakeholders, such as civil society, academia and the private sector; and defining a system-wide vision and road map on the post-2015 UN development agenda. 1 2

3 4

General Assembly resolution 65/1 of 22 September 2010. Annual report of the Secretary-General on accelerating progress towards the Millennium Development Goals: options for sustained and inclusive growth and issues for advancing the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015, 11 July 2011, A/66/126. Interoffice Memorandum No. 11-08757. 19 September 2011. The Task Team is co-chaired by DESA and UNDP. The list of participating agencies is included in Annex I.

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

3. The Task Team has grounded its work in a shared understanding of development as resulting from the complex interaction of multiple economic, social, cultural, ecological, political and legal factors. Those factors have important cross-border elements, tying together people across the globe. Development is also context-specific, and different initial conditions mean that outcomes — in terms of the fulfilment of human rights and degrees of freedom (from want and fear) — vary greatly within and among countries and population groups. There is no universal blueprint of how to overcome these disparities and deficits, and how to lead the world towards a shared and sustainable future for all. 4. The purpose of a global development agenda is thus not to prescribe specific development strategies or policies, but to provide guidance for priority setting at all levels (global, regional, national and sub-national). Such an agenda should help create an enabling environment to meet shared objectives, support global solutions to global problems and guide national development efforts, while supporting the empowerment of people to determine their own futures. It should also be defined in a way that facilitates its implementation, transparent monitoring of progress and mutual accountability for results.

5. To call it a “UN development agenda” is to denote the readiness of the United Nations to serve as the multi-stakeholder platform for its formulation, with the capacity to undertake the broad-based consultations required and with the ambition to produce a global development agenda that all countries and all stakeholders will recognize as their own. 6. There are a number of relevant ongoing processes where negotiations leading to international agreements have been and will take place, including, among others, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in June 2012. The progress made within those processes and by the multiple consultations that will take place at national, regional and global levels will feed into the consultations on the post-2015 UN development agenda.

7. This report of the UN System Task Team aims to serve as a reference to orient these ongoing discussions and the broader consultation process taking place among governments, the UN system and other international organizations, civil society, academia and the private sector. The report will also inform the work of the High-level Panel of Eminent Persons to be appointed by the Secretary-General to advise him on the post-2015 process and it will provide technical inputs to the process for developing sustainable development goals (SDGs) that was agreed in the Rio+20 Outcome. 5 8. The report begins by reflecting on the experience of the UN system in supporting the implementation of the MDG framework (section II). Building on the lessons learned, the report provides an assessment of the key development challenges to which the global development agenda should respond (section 5

United Nations, The Future We Want, Outcome Document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, A/CONF.216/L.1, para. 248-249, http://www.uncsd2012.org/ thefuturewewant.html.

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

III). It proposes a vision of people-centred, inclusive and sustainable development (section IV) and initial ideas for possible contours of a post-2015 UN development agenda (section V). It concludes by laying out a possible road map for the process of defining the agenda, including ways of bringing different voices of people around the world into the consultations (section VI).

9. The report is informed by the initial consultations organized by the UN System Task Team with Member States, academics, civil society organizations and the private sector. 6 It is also based on a thorough review of the growing literature on the subject.7

10. The report manifests a genuinely collaborative effort among the agencies represented in the UN System Task Team. Above all, it represents a collective determination to reflect on the experience with the MDG framework and provide a solid foundation for all stakeholders to move forward with the preparations for a post-2015 UN development agenda that is responsive to both today’s and tomorrow’s global challenges and worthy of the aspirations of all countries and people for a better future.

The UN System Task Team organized an Expert Group Meeting on 27-29 February 2012, and three informal briefings with Member States (General Assembly in November 2011 and February 2012; and ECOSOC in March 2012). The Report is also informed by ongoing consultations between UN system entities and civil society organizations. As a supplement, participating entities of the UN System Task Team have prepared a number of “think pieces” on thematic issues central to this report. These notes are available from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/beyond2015.shtml and may also serve as references for further consultations on the post-2015 UN development agenda.

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

Photo Credit: UN Photo

II. The transformative power of global goals 11. In 2000, leaders of the world community set forth a shared vision for development based on the fundamental values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature and shared responsibility, in the form of the Millennium Declaration adopted by the UN General Assembly. 8 The MDGs that followed have since provided milestones for global and national development efforts, with the overall target date of 2015.9 12. The MDG framework helped to galvanize development efforts, set global and national priorities, and focus action at all levels. Important progress has been made in most countries, particularly towards the goals of eradicating poverty and improving access to primary education. Yet, trends have been uneven within and across countries and regions. The poorest and those most discriminated against on the basis of gender, age, disability, ethnicity or otherwise have often been the most disadvantaged.10 8 9

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

The MDG framework helped to galvanize development efforts

General Assembly resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000, para.6. Report of the Secretary-General on the road map towards the implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration, 6 September 2001, A/56/326, p. 56. United Nations System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda Review of the contributions of the MDG agenda to foster development: lessons for the Post 2015 UN Development Agenda (New York, 2012), available from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ beyond2015.shtml. For assessments of the uneven progress towards the MDGs, see The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.11.I.10), available from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/11_MDG%20Report_EN.pdf. IMF and World Bank, Global Monitoring Report 2012: Food prices, nutrition and the Millennium Development Goals (Washington, D.C.).

â&#x20AC;?

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

13. Much more work remains to be done. Moreover, in some areas where global “targets” have already been met (such as halving extreme poverty), achievement of the “goal” (eradication of extreme poverty and hunger) is still pending. At the same time, other development challenges have gained more attention or become more pressing since 2000. Achieving basic human development goals and human rights will depend on addressing these emerging and pressing challenges, as elaborated in section III. The current section reviews the experience in implementing the MDG framework and draws lessons on how to proceed in defining the post-2015 UN development agenda.

Reviewing the MDG framework

14. The precise added value of the MDG framework is difficult to determine. Yet, a review of its implementation clearly shows the historic contribution of the MDG framework in providing a common worldwide cause to address poverty and putting human progress at the forefront of the global development agenda. A brief summary of the framework’s strengths and weaknesses, as assessed by the UN System Task Team, is provided in Annex II.

15. A major strength of the MDG framework derives from its focus on a limited set of concrete, common human development goals and targets: eradication of poverty and hunger, universal access to primary education, reducing child and maternal mortality and improving maternal health, promoting gender equality and empowering women, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership for development. The framework has provided focus for priority setting in national and international development policies. Its simplicity, transparency and multi-dimensionality helped rally broad support for the goals and their achievement, and the emphasis on human development shifted policy attention well beyond the economic growth objectives that dominated previous agendas. The Rio+20 Outcome also recognizes these as features to be retained in a future development agenda. 16. The format of the MDG framework brought an inspirational vision together with a set of concrete and time-bound goals and targets that could be monitored by statistically robust indicators. This has not only helped keep the focus on results, but also motivated the strengthening of statistical systems and use of quality data to improve policy design and monitoring by national governments and international organizations. 17. The MDG framework strengthened the global partnership for development (MDG-8) and linked official development assistance (ODA), a fair multilateral trading system, debt relief and affordable access to new technologies and essential medicines to human development.

18. Some of these strengths also have been perceived as weaknesses. The focus on few goals caused certain development dimensions to be undervalued. With the implementation efforts, it has become clear that some targets were not adequately formulated. For example, some targets undervalued demographic change and consequently also the magnitude of certain social problems, such

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

as the size of urban slum populations. Furthermore, the emphasis on global targets went to the detriment of consideration for national circumstances and differences in initial conditions. Especially in the case of African countries, this has led to perceptions of failure even as substantial progress had been made, but without meeting the globally set target.11

19. The MDGs also did not adequately address issues of productive employment, violence against women, social protection, inequalities, social exclusion, biodiversity, persistent malnutrition and increase in non-communicable diseases, reproductive health and complexities related to demographic dynamics, peace and security, governance, the rule of law and human rights. Neither did the MDG framework account for vulnerability to natural hazards and other external shocks, which have caused setbacks in MDG achievement. 20. In focusing on end objectives, the MDG framework provided little guidance as to the means to achieve them. While this had the advantage of keeping national stakeholders in the driver’s seat of finding the best ways to reach the MDGs, the disadvantage has been a lost opportunity to provide guidance on how to address the root causes of poverty and unmet basic needs. 21. Several of the goals and targets related to the global partnership for development were defined rather imprecisely, thereby weakening accountability for the promised international support for the implementation of the MDG framework. Many of the commitments made by the international community have remained unfulfilled.12 Insufficient access to predictable development finance, export markets, technologies and medicines remain important constraints to sustainable and inclusive development for many developing countries. The global economic and financial crisis of 2008-2009 and its aftermath revealed important shortcomings in multilateral capacity to minimize and cope with shocks caused by volatile world markets.

“

A number of these shortcomings could have been avoided if a more inclusive consultation process had taken place

22. Critics have argued that a number of these shortcomings could have been avoided if a more inclusive consultation process had taken place in formulating the MDGs. A more inclusive process might have led to a better understanding of the need to adapt the global goals and targets to country contexts, thus avoiding the unintended perception of the MDGs as a set of uniform targets to be pursued by all countries, regardless of their initial conditions.13 On the other hand, however, a more extensive consultation process might have made it more difficult to 11

See, for example, William Easterly, “How the Millennium Development Goals are unfair to Africa”, World Development, vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 26–35, as well as Ashwani Saith, “From universal values to Millennium Development Goals: lost in translation”, Development and Change, vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 1167–1199. MDG Gap Task Force Report 2011—The Global Partnership for Development: Time to Deliver (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.11.I.11). available from http://www.un.org/en/development/ desa/policy/mdg_gap/mdg_gap2011/mdg8report2011_engw.pdf. Jan Vandemoortele, “The MDGs: ‘M’ for misunderstood?”, WIDER Angle, No. 1 (June), pp. 6-7.

”

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

come to the focused set of measurable targets, which has proven to have been a key strength of the MDG framework.

Lessons for the post-2015 UN development agenda

23. The vision for global development contained in the Millennium Declaration was intended to unify pursuance of economic, social and environmental objectives along with ensuring peace, security and respect for democratic values. Giving priority to and protecting the destitute and vulnerable, a core focus of the MDGs, emanated from this view. This vision is as relevant today as in 2000, notwithstanding the major changes that have occurred since then.

24. Thus far, in the discussions on the post-2015 UN development agenda, most stakeholders have identified the format of concrete goals, targets and indicators as one of the major strengths of the MDG framework — and a feature to be retained. Such a format implies a clear framework of accountability, based on clear and easy-to-communicate goals, operational time-bound quantitative targets and measurable indicators. Most MDG targets appeared realistic and achievable, which made them credible. This sense of realism should be retained, but balanced with the need to be more ambitious. Continuing along historical trends will not be good enough, as the efforts needed to mitigate and adjust to climate change and to put the world on a sustainable development path make abundantly clear. 25. The focus on ends in the MDG framework was important in giving priority to human development in national development strategies. It makes sense to retain a focus on ends in the post-2015 agenda, but the opportunity to address the issue of means — without being prescriptive — should not be missed. Without providing blueprints, the post-2015 framework could include some general guidelines for policy orientation and coherence, and could highlight some of the key success factors of effective development processes. This might involve, for instance, policies that foster productive investment and decent work, and greater consistency of macroeconomic policies with broader developmental objectives, including, among others, poverty reduction, full employment and decent work, and sustainable food, nutrition and energy security.

26. Given the high degree of global interdependence, setting collective goals and targets to be pursued by the world community will remain meaningful. In doing so, however, a one-size-fits-all approach should be avoided. Needed flexibility should be ensured to tailor targets to regional, national and sub-national conditions and priorities, while respecting international standards, and should be tracked with data disaggregated by sex, age and geography (including rural-urban location). Such tailoring of development targets to national and local circumstances is most effectively and legitimately done through participatory processes.

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

27. Given the outstanding deficits, the post-2015 UN development agenda should maintain the focus on human development and the eradication of poverty as ultimate objectives of any development agenda. Yet, the agenda should also respond to a number of challenges, elaborated in section III, that have become more pressing since the adoption of the Millennium Declaration and did not figure explicitly or were not adequately reflected in the MDG framework: reducing inequalities within and among countries; tackling climate change and achieving sustainable development; increasing resilience to natural disasters; addressing demographic and epidemiological dynamics; dealing with urban growth; ensuring peace and security; improving governance and State capabilities; and respecting human rights and cultural diversity. Dealing with these challenges in the context of a broader development agenda, as outlined in sections IV and V, will require globally coherent responses that are the responsibility of all countries.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

The post-2015 UN development agenda should maintain the focus on human development

28. The global consensus built around the MDG framework was one of its major strengths. Going forward, greater interdependence among countries and the global challenges ahead will require a truly global agenda for development, with shared responsibilities by all countries. Goals and targets for the global partnership should be more precisely defined to improve implementation and strengthen accountability.

â&#x20AC;?

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

Photo Credit: UN Photo

III. Global trends, challenges and opportunities to which the post-2015 UN development agenda should respond a.

Much progress, but “business as usual” is not an option

29. Since 2000, when the Millennium Declaration was adopted, there has been strong economic growth in many parts of the world, lifting millions out of poverty. Major advancements have been made in technology, radically changing the way people communicate, organize, network, learn and participate as national and global citizens. 30. However, progress in human development has been uneven, leaving many behind and widening inequalities. Furthermore, the global food, energy and financial crises of 2007-2010 highlighted the fragility of global food supply systems and exposed systemic failures in the workings of financial and commodity markets and major weaknesses in the mechanisms of global governance.14 The rapid worldwide spread of the financial fallout in the United States and, more recently, the uncertainty in global financial markets generated by the sovereign debt crises 14

“

Progress in human development has been uneven

World Economic and Social Survey 2010: Retooling Global Development (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.10.II.C.1).

”

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

in Europe have underscored the interconnectedness of the global economy. Higher and much more volatile world food and energy prices reflect decadeslong neglect of agriculture, negative impacts of climate change, higher exposure and vulnerability to disasters, land use for bio-fuel production that went at the expense of food production, as well as energy and commodity market speculation. Nearly one billion people in the world are undernourished15 and more than 200 million are unemployed.16 Labour incomes have been stagnant or have fallen as a share of national income in most developed and developing countries since the 1980s. Only 28 per cent of the global population is covered by comprehensive social protection systems, reflecting high degrees of informality.17 Indeed, the global jobs crisis reflects the human costs of these multiple crises, deepening marginalization and poverty among vulnerable groups. The economic and food crises are compounded by the global environmental crisis, of which climate change has the most ominous implications.

Progress in poverty reduction, but major inequalities persist

31. A number of developing countries, mostly in Asia, have been narrowing the gap in living standards vis-à-vis developed countries. Others, especially in Africa, have fallen further behind. The number of the world’s poor living on less than $1.25 a day decreased from 1.9 billion in 1990 to 1.3 billion in 2008.18 Many developing countries have seen poverty decline, but in absolute terms the reduction was overwhelmingly concentrated in China. In spite of decreasing poverty rates in sub-Saharan Africa, the absolute number of poor people increased in the region.19 At the same time, the majority of the world’s poor people — three-quarters —live in what are now middle-income countries. 32. With few exceptions, income and wealth inequalities within countries have increased since the early 1980s, including in high-income countries. 20 Inequalities in access to land and other productive assets, as well as in social outcomes and service access, also remain widespread. In developing countries, nutritious food, safe drinking water, improved sanitation, basic education coverage and learning outcomes are much worse for low-income and rural families, while child death rates and stunting are two to four times higher between the 15

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011 (Rome), available from http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2330e/i2330e00.htm. 16 International Labour Organization, Global Employment Trends 2011 (Geneva), available from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/ publication/wcms_150440.pdf. 17 International Labour Organization, World Social Security Report 2010/2011 (Geneva, 2011). 18 Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion, “An update to the World Bank’s estimates of consumption poverty in the developing world”, Briefing Note (Washington D.C.: World Bank, Development Research Group, 2012), available from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVCALNET/ Resources/Global_Poverty_Update_2012_02-29-12.pdf. 19 Ibid. 20 World Bank, World Development Indicators 2008 (Washington, D.C.)

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

lowest and highest wealth quintiles. 21 Gender inequalities persist, as shown in wage earnings differentials, access to positions of decision-making and HIV infection rates. 22 In too many contexts, equal access to justice and political participation is not guaranteed in practice.

33. Redressing these trends will be a major challenge in the years ahead. High inequalities have impeded sustainable development and have no place in a world where a decent and secure well-being should be a prerogative of all citizens.

The knowledge challenge

34. The worldwide spread of the internet and ICTs has massively expanded opportunities for the creation, transmission and dissemination of information. Yet, inequalities in access to ICT networks, education and technological progress and to innovation systems remain vast, within and among countries. Rapid loss of traditional knowledge and its non-formal channels of transmission is further widening the gap. Limited access to knowledge hampers progress towards inclusive growth and employment creation, technological progress for sustainable development and health improvements. Greater knowledge sharing will be critical to induce the transformative changes needed to achieve food, nutrition and energy security in sustainable ways and to contain the threat of climate change. 23

Photo Credit: iStock Photo

Shifting demographics

35. Over the past quarter century, world population increased by two billion. Currently, about 78 million people are added to the world’s population

21 UNICEF, Progress for Children: Achieving the MDGs with Equity (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.10.XX.5). 22 UN Women, “Progress of the World’s Women 2011-2012: In pursuit of justice” (New York, 2011). 23 See, for example, World Economic and Social Survey 2011: The Great Green Technological Transformation (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.11.II.C.1); and United Nations System High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security,“ Food and nutrition security for all through sustainable agriculture and food systems”, March 2012, available from: http://un-foodsecurity.org/ sites/default/files/HLTF%20note%20on%20Sustainable%20Agriculture%20and%20Food%20 Systems.pdf.

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

every year. 24 This means that, by 2050, the global economy would need to be able to provide a decent living for more than 9 billion people, of whom 85 per cent will be living in what are now developing countries. 25 Africa will account for about half of the absolute increase in population and be home to nearly one quarter of the world population by 2050.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

36. Inequalities in access to sufficient and nutritious food, education and basic social and health services, including reproductive health services, are key determinants of both higher mortality and fertility rates among the poor and in low-income regions. High levels of unintended pregnancy persist in many countries, particularly among the poor and young adults. The growing number of youth with limited employment opportunities poses an enormous challenge, potentially undermining social cohesion and adding pressures on migratory flows.

37. Overall progress in human development worldwide has contributed to dramatic reductions in mortality rates and increases in longevity. As a result, the world population is ageing rapidly. By 2050, one in three persons living in developed countries, and one in five in what currently constitute developing countries, will be over 60 years of age.26 Declining and ageing populations are already putting large pressures on pension and health systems, especially in developed countries, but increasingly also in some developing countries. The challenges are manifold, including the needs to redesign pension systems so as to ensure economic security for all in old age while sustaining financial viability; to enhance health and longterm care services to keep ageing populations healthy and active; and to enhance opportunities for older persons to actively participate in society.

The world population is ageing rapidly

â&#x20AC;?

Photo Credit: UN Photo 24

United Nations Population Fund, State of World Population 2011 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.11.III.H.1) available from: http://foweb.unfpa.org/SWP2011/reports/EN-SWOP2011-FINAL.pdf 25 Ibid. 26 World Population Ageing 2009 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.10.XIII.5) available from http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPA2009/WPA2009-report.pdf.

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

38. Around one billion people are international or internal migrants; South-South migration is as significant as South-to-North movements With approximately 214 million international migrants and an estimated 740 million internal migrants today; about one billion persons live outside their place of origin or habitual residence. 27 International migration today affects every region, with South-to-South migration as significant as South-to-North movements. Movements of people can be associated with multiple factors, including the search for better educational and job opportunities and working conditions, flight from poverty, conflict, human rights abuse, hunger, discrimination and environmental degradation and natural disasters. International migration is bringing benefits to both countries of origin and destination, including remittances and reduced labour shortages. The transfer of resources, skills, knowledge, ideas and networks through migration is difficult to quantify, yet significant. Many millions of migrants have also benefited from building a better future for themselves and their dependants. However, too many migrants continue to work and live in insecure, precarious and dangerous conditions, often marginalized and subject to discrimination and without access to social and health care services, while disruptions to family life can have significant social consequences, particularly in the country of origin. 39. By 2050, 70 per cent of the world’s population is projected to live in urban areas. 28 Rapid urban growth is mainly occurring in countries least able to cope with the demand for decent jobs, adequate housing and urban basic services. Close to one billion people, or 33 per cent of the urban population in developing countries, live in slums, in inequitable and often life-threatening conditions. 29 If left unaddressed, these trends may become sources of social and political instability. 40. Larger urban populations will also influence food and landuse patterns, with potentially vast implications. Rising incomes and continued population growth have not only raised food demand, but also altered dietary patterns. This is reflected in increased per capita meat consumption, which has risen by about a quarter over the past decade. While meat is an important source of protein, under existing production conditions, higher demand can lead to land use shifts and further deforestation, higher energy use, rising food prices and regional food shortages. Global agricultural production will have to almost double in developing countries to feed a growing population by 2050. 30 Although global food production has outpaced population growth, it has failed to meet potential demand, 27

“

Global agricultural production will have to almost double

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, “Trends in international migration stocks: migrants by age and sex, POP/DB/MIG/Stock/Rev.2010 (New York, 2011); and United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2009 – Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development (New York, 2009). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Populations Division, “World Urbanization Prospects, the 2011 revision”, (New York, 2012), available from: http://esa.un.org/ unpd/wup/index.htm. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011: Bridging the Urban Divide (Nairobi, 2008), available from http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/ listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=2917. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011, op. cit.

”

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

“

and unequal distribution still left nearly one billion people undernourished worldwide in 2010. At the same time, about 500 million people are obese. 31 Through its association with sharp increases in the prevalence of chronic diseases, unhealthy food consumption patterns are pushing up health costs worldwide. At the same time, under-nutrition at an early age limits adolescent growth and increases the risk of incurring chronic disease later in life. Under-nutrition further heightens women’s health risks during pregnancy. Many developing countries face a double health burden caused by the high prevalence of both under- and over-nutrition.

Increased human activity is threatening to surpass the Earth’s carrying capacity

Growing environmental footprints

41. Growth of population, income, energy and resource use, waste and pollution have come at the cost of unprecedented use of natural resources and environmental degradation. Almost half of the Earth’s forests are gone, groundwater sources and fish stocks are being rapidly depleted, and land degradation and ocean acidification are worsening. Biodiversity has been enormously reduced, and carbon dioxide emissions increased by 40 per cent between 1990 and 2008, to reach dangerous climate destabilizing concentrations of close to 30 billion tonnes a year. 32

”

Photo Credit: UN Photo

42. Increased levels of human activity are threatening to surpass the Earth’s carrying capacity as a source and sink. At present, fossil fuels provide for more than 85 per cent of primary energy and account for about 60 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions as well as a significant proportion of emissions 31 32

World Health Organization, “Nutrition Challenges”, available from http://www.who.int/nutrition/ challenges/en/index.html. World Economic and Social Survey 2011, op. cit.

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

of sulphur and nitrogen compounds, black carbon, mercury and other air pollutants. To limit the increase in global average temperature to 2째C above pre-industrial levels (with a probability greater than 50 per cent), greenhouse gas emissions should have been reduced to less than 44 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2 equivalent by 2020, well below present levels. The added challenge is that reductions in GHG emissions have to be achieved while enhancing access to energy. An estimated 1.4 billion people lack access to modern energy services, hampering their ability to overcome poverty. Traditional energy supplies also impose a higher unpaid work burden, especially on women.

Photo Credit: iStock Photo

43. The incidence of natural disasters has increased five-fold since the 1970s. This can be attributed in part to human-induced climate change. Natural disasters destroy livelihoods and may wipe out years of infrastructure investment. Deforestation, soil erosion, degradation of natural coastal protection and poor infrastructure have increased the likelihood that weather shocks will cause human disasters, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable in the LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS. It is estimated that over 42 million people were displaced by sudden-onset natural disasters in 2010.

Living in an insecure world

44. At least one fifth of humanity lives in countries experiencing significant violence, political conflict, insecurity and societal fragility. 33 Such conditions form a major obstacle to development, with lasting implications for societal well-being. country affected by violence or fragility has achieved a single MDG 33

Geneva Declaration Secretariat, Global Burden of Armed Violence 2011: Lethal Encounters (Cambridge University Press, 2011).

“

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

No low-income country affected by violence or fragility has achieved a single MDG target

target. 34 Countries with major violence have poverty rates more than 20 percentage points higher than the average. 35 Fragile and conflict-affected countries also face far higher levels of undernourishment, educational deficits, child mortality, single female-headed households with young children, and safe drinking water and basic sanitation deprivations.

45. Peace, if defined as the “absence of violence” or “absence of the fear of violence”, is associated with multiple factors that reinforce one another, including horizontal, vertical and gender equality, justice, relevant education and employment opportunities, sound management of natural resources, human rights protection, political inclusion and low levels of corruption. 36 Prevention of conflict and sustained peace can bring rapid development gains, as shown by the experiences of Cambodia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Rwanda, among many others. A legal system ensuring freedom from threat of all types of violence, including against minority groups, women and children; freedom from abuse, coercion and harassment; security of property; and confidence that effective investigation and criminal justice will follow any victimization. Addressing the sources of conflicts requires a multidimensional approach where development, human rights, peace, security and the rule of law are interrelated dimensions of well-being.

”

46. Income and job insecurity have also increased due to patterns of globalization based on outsourcing and weaker labour protection. This, together with the limited access to social security for the majority of workers in the world, puts the livelihoods of many households at risk to even small economic shocks.

Governance and accountability deficits

47. The recent food, fuel and financial crises have highlighted the inter-connectedness of the world economic system. Climate change and rising migration are challenges with global ramifications. Yet, the policies, rules and institutions established to govern these processes are mostly national, while global mechanisms are strongly compartmentalized. The multilateral trade, finance and environmental architectures, for instance, lack coherence across many dimensions. 37 Institutions of global governance differ in constituencies and the distribution of voice and power among their respective memberships; democratic deficits exist in some of them, especially among the international financial institutions. 48. Global governance deficits and failure to implement international legal frameworks have spurred countries to seek regional solutions, including regional trade agreements, regional mechanisms of financial cooperation

34 World Bank, World Development Report 2011 (Washington, D.C.). 35 Ibid 36 Institute for Economics and Peace, “Structures of peace: identifying what leads to peaceful societies”, October 2011 (Sydney). 37 World Economic and Social Survey 2010, op. cit.

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

and informal arrangements to approach regional issues of migration. 38 These arrangements are important in responding to region-specific development needs, but they require coordination to avoid policy fragmentation and incoherence with multilateral regimes and international standards.

49. Recent events in the Arab States have brought to the fore longstanding demands from civil society, especially from young people, for a development trajectory grounded in democratic governance, the rule of law 39 and human rights. The events underscore the importance of addressing democratic governance deficits at the national and sub-national levels to ensure the legitimacy of development policies and to support the empowerment of people.

A need for new development pathways

50. Continuation along previously trodden economic growth pathways will exacerbate inequalities, social tensions and pressures on the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resources and natural environment. There is therefore an urgent need to find new development pathways that encourage creativity and innovation in the pursuit of inclusive, equitable and sustainable growth and development. Such an effort must be matched by reshaping the global partnership for development to support implementation and to ensure effective accountability mechanisms at all levels.

38 UNCTAD, Trade and Development Report 2007 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.07.II.D.11); and International Organization for Migration, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Regional consultative processesâ&#x20AC;?, available from http://www.iom.int/rcps. 39 This includes respect for customary and traditional laws which is important for indigenous and rural populations in many countries.

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

Photo Credit: UN Photo

IV. Vision: the future we want for all a.

Transformative change towards inclusive, people-centred, sustainable development

51. This report presents a vision for the post-2015 UN development agenda as one that seeks to achieve inclusive, people-centred, sustainable global development: ‘the future we want for all’. Given the challenges described in section III, this will require transformative change in existing production and consumption processes, management of natural resources and mechanisms of governance. This, in turn, calls for a broad approach to development, based on social justice, structural transformation, economic diversification and growth. 40

52. The vision described here is holistic and global. It recognizes both the need for policy coherence and the diversity of contexts and challenges within and among countries. While no specific development path will suit all 40

“

A vision for the post-2015 UN development agenda… that seeks to achieve inclusive, people-centred, sustainable global development

This approach is consistent with Article 55 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states: “With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote: higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development.”

”

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

situations, two elements should be seen as common: first, core values, principles and standards derived from internationally-adopted normative frameworks should be explicitly integrated into the global development agenda and corresponding national strategies; and, second, the shorter-term pursuit of verifiable progress should support and affirm those principles. Founded on core values, transformative change will be fuelled by policy innovation and experimentation, as well as mutual and participatory learning. 53. The values and principles affirmed in the Millennium Declaration and its seven key objectives 41 remain a solid foundation for addressing today’s and tomorrow’s global development challenges and should therefore be used to help shape the post-2015 UN development agenda. This can be done in a focused manner by building a framework that: (i) is based on the three fundamental principles of human rights, equality and sustainability; and (ii) orients key goals along the four, highly interdependent dimensions of inclusive social development, environmental sustainability, inclusive economic development, and peace and security. These core dimensions are consistent with the notion of “freedom from want” for present and future generations, building on the three pillars of the sustainable development concept (economic, social, environmental), and that of “freedom of fear”.

54. Effective implementation of such a framework would require a high degree of policy coherence at the global, regional, national and sub-national levels. As there are no blueprints for the most effective “enablers”, ample space would need to be ensured for experimentation and adaptation to local settings. The obvious need for differentiation across different contexts is not inconsistent with an emphasis on policy coherence. The common-but-differentiated approach to policy coherence is to be guided by the overall vision and underlying principles of the proposed framework for the post-2015 UN development agenda.

55. Figure 1 provides a schematic presentation of an integrated framework for defining the post-2015 UN development agenda, built around the three fundamental principles of the vision, the four dimensions along which goals could be pursued and the four broad areas of “enablers”. In the proposed integrated framework, the “enablers” should be seen as not just effective towards achieving goals related to one dimension, but rather across all dimensions. The emphasis on the “enablers” is to address one of the perceived weaknesses of the MDG framework, which was silent on the means to achieve the goals. 56. The details of such a framework would need to be elaborated and refined through broad consultations. What follows has no intention of defining any goals in particular at this stage, but rather to provide a tentative description of how the framework could take further shape and serve as a guide for realizing the development vision presented here. 41

Peace, security and disarmament; development and poverty eradication; protecting our common environment; human rights, democracy and good governance; protecting the vulnerable; meeting the special needs of Africa; and strengthening the United Nations (General Assembly resolution 55/2, op. cit., paras. 1–6).

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

Three fundamental principles

57. The three principles would constitute the common, underlying elements necessary to address and resolve, through transformative change, the global trends and challenges that people will face in the post-2015 era. They provide the foundation of an agenda for achieving a better life for all human beings, and would serve to inspire and assist each society in determining how best to pursue this vision.

Human rights

58. The human rights embedded in the UN Charter and the range of broadlyratified human rights conventions and treaties are based on fundamental values. These values include equality and non-discrimination, peace and security, freedom from fear and want, respect for fundamental principles and rights at work and to food, social and cultural dignity, solidarity, tolerance, shared responsibility, accountable and democratic governance, and sustainable development. The same values would need to underpin the new transformative development agenda. They encompass social and economic rights, while also including civil and political rights related to peace and security and other challenges, as well as the right to development. These need to be addressed simultaneously.

59. The enablers of participation, accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment and rule of law42 provide a strengthened foundation for inclusive development paths. They provide practical guidance to design and assess development strategies and to clarify their content — for example, by prioritizing universal access to adequate water, food, energy, income security, health services and other essential public goods and services.

ii. Equality

60. The reduction of inequalities in all societies is essential to a vision of inclusive, sustainable development. The adoption of explicitly inclusive approaches is merited not only on ethical grounds, but also from the perspectives of development and peace and security. Such approaches would give the highest priority to addressing the situation of women and youth, as well as that of the most deprived and impoverished and seek the greatest potential for “catch-up” progress — including by removing social, cultural, legal, administrative and financial barriers in their access to services, decent jobs, land and other economic resources, entrepreneurship and technology. 61. Gender equality has long been recognized both as a human right and a core development goal. In addition, discrimination against women and girls impairs progress in all other areas of development. The global development agenda should seek not only to address and monitor the elimination of specific gender gaps, but also to transform the structural factors that underpin the widespread persistence of gender inequalities, gender-based violence, 42

The rule of law is a core value of the United Nations and a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights, norms and standards.

Sustainable food and nutrition security Universal access to quality health care Universal access to quality education Inclusive social protection systems Managing demographic dynamics Fair rules to manage migration

Enablers:

Ensuring decent work and productive employment

Reducing inequalities

Eradicating income poverty and hunger

Inclusive economic development

Fair and stable global trading system Adequate financing for development and stable financial system Affordable access to technology and knowledge Providing sustainable energy for all Coherent macroeconomic and development policies supportive of inclusive and green growth

Enablers:

Universal access to clean water and sanitation

Gender equality

Reduced mortality and morbidity

Adequate nutrition for all Quality education for all

Inclusive social development

Sustainability

Equality

Human rights

Resilience to natural hazards

Stable climate

Protecting biodiversity

Environmental sustainability

Enablers:

Enablers: Democratic and coherent global governance mechanisms Good governance practices based on the rule of law Conflict prevention and mediation Human rights protection Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s empowerment

Conflict-free access to natural resources

Freedom from violence, conflict and abuse

Peace and security

Sustainable use of natural resources (climate, oceans, forests, biodiversity) and management of waste Managing disaster risk and improving disaster response

24 UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

Figure 1. An integrated framework for realizing the â&#x20AC;&#x153;future we want for allâ&#x20AC;? in the post-2015 UN development agenda

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

discrimination and unequal development progress between women and men, girls and boys. The empowerment of women and girls and the protection of their rights 43 should be centre-pieces of the post-2015 agenda. 62. To decisively address inequalities will entail resolving the symptoms and immediate effects of poverty and deprivation, but must also go further. Transformative change will require recognizing and tackling both manifested gaps and their structural causes, including discrimination and exclusion, widely faced by women and girls, persons with disabilities, older people and members of indigenous and minority groups. National, local and regional strategies will need to be based on evidence and understanding of the structural and intersecting nature of inequalities, and shaped and monitored with the full involvement of those excluded.

iii.

Sustainability

63. Sustainability,44 broadly defined, should serve as a fundamental principle for all aspects of development and for all societies. It represents the key challenge for a transformative agenda: how to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and achieve more equitable and sustainable management and governance of natural resources while promoting dynamic and inclusive economic and human development. Consistent with the Rio+20 Outcome, the focus on sustainable development should comprise these three dimensions — economic, social and environmental — and recognize their inter-linkages. 64. Sustainability also implies ensuring inter-generational justice and a future world fit for children. This entails safeguarding a sustainable future in which children will be able to grow up healthy, well-nourished, resilient, well-educated, culturally sensitive and protected from violence and neglect. Children will need access to safe and unpolluted ecosystems — including clean water, oceans and air — as resources which must be protected, both now and in the future.

Four core dimensions

65. This section elaborates the four core dimensions where progress will be needed in coming years and decades in order to build a rights-based, equitable, secure and sustainable world for all people. Achieving these broad objectives requires holistic approaches to policies, given positive synergies across all four dimensions. The three principles elaborated above — human rights, equality and sustainability — should shape and help inform development pathways to pursue these broad objectives and any specific goals, within the global development agenda. The suggested “enablers” are indicative of each of the four dimensions, yet understood as supportive of all. 43

Mechanisms for the protection of those rights would not only include legal provisions and their effective implementation, but also policies encouraging acceptance of gender equality as part of social norms and behaviours, reducing of gender inequalities in labour markets and access to productive resources, protecting of reproductive rights, and improving access to good quality health and education services and social protection. The specific dimension of environmental sustainability, to which this principle fully applies, is addressed in section IV.c.ii.

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

“

Inclusive social development

66. Ensuring people’s rights to health and education, including through universal access to quality health and education services, is vital for inclusive social development and should be a critical element of the post-2015 vision. Adequate investments in these areas will be needed to realize unmet MDGs, facilitate sustainable economic growth and employment generation, and close the gaps in human capabilities that help perpetuate inequalities and poverty across generations.

Ensuring people’s rights to health and education… is vital for inclusive social development

67. Priorities for social development and investments in people would include: preventive, curative and promotional health services, with particular emphasis on maternal, newborn and child survival and health; reproductive health services; access to essential medicines; non-communicable and infectious diseases; safe water, sanitation and hygiene; early childhood and adolescent development; childhood education; training and lifelong learning; and access to modern energy services. Major actions to halt the spread of HIV and AIDS will need to be integrated into these priorities. Access to sufficient nutritious food and promotion of healthy life styles with universal access to preventive health services will be essential to reduce the high incidence of non-communicable diseases in both developed and developing countries. Providing access to clean drinking water and sanitation for all people is still an unfulfilled promise in many countries and thus remains a priority.

”

68. The post-2015 agenda should focus on effective governance of systems for social development, ensuring universal coverage and quality service delivery that is also affordable to the most deprived groups. New health and information technologies and culturally relevant communication initiatives are powerful tools to support social development interventions and to empower families.

Photo Credit: iStock Photo

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

69. Bold, comprehensive efforts to eradicate hunger and guarantee food and nutrition security for all, including access to sufficient nutritious food, are both feasible and essential. Such efforts would include adopting national strategies to support faster food productivity growth, greater food security, less food price volatility, strengthening resilience through the implementation of inclusive social protection systems, and empowering people through land tenure security, provision of information, technology and better access to credits and markets to better manage price shocks and climate risks.

70. For young children, especially those up to age two, food and nutrition security, as well as stimulation and protection, are critical for their physical and cognitive development. Adolescent girls, older people and persons with disabilities are also widely susceptible to acute nutritional and health deprivations. For all these groups, and their caregivers, social protection is an essential human right.

71. It is also critical to promote equitable change that ensures people’s ability to choose their value systems in peace, thereby allowing for full participation and empowerment. Communities and individuals must be able to create and practice their own culture and enjoy that of others free from fear. This will require, inter alia, respect for cultural diversity, safeguarding cultural and natural heritage, fostering cultural institutions, strengthening cultural and creative industries, and promoting cultural tourism.

ii.

Environmental sustainability

72. Immediate priorities in preserving environmental sustainability include ensuring a stable climate, stopping ocean acidification, preventing land degradation and unsustainable water use, sustainably managing natural resources and protecting the natural resources base, including biodiversity.

73. Combining the diversification of production with increased resourceuse efficiency and incentives for the development and use of products with a light carbon, water and biodiversity footprint will be needed. The transition to low-carbon energy sources would need to be coupled with more efficient use of energy, greener consumption and the promotion of energy-efficient technologies. Improved scientific understanding and knowledge-sharing on climate change, natural hazards, the space environment and natural resource limits will be necessary for effective policy-making for sustainable development.

“

74. Education for sustainable development provides the values, skills and knowledge needed for shaping new attitudes, and consumption and production patterns conducive to sustainable development. Appropriate technical and vocational education and training will be essential for preparing people, including youth, for jobs enhancing environmental sustainability. 75. Promoting environmental sustainability, including sustainable, integrated natural resource management, with

Promoting environmental sustainability… can build resilience at all levels of society and realize multiple benefits

”

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

the full participation of local organizations, can build resilience at all levels of society and realize multiple benefits. Ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation can provide a win-win opportunity for reducing vulnerabilities, as part of national adaptation strategies. Traditional and indigenous knowledge, adaptation and coping strategies can be major assets for local response strategies.

Photo Credit: iStock Photo

76. Deepening resilience among vulnerable populations and reducing risks of disasters and other shocks must be central to limiting the social and economic costs of disasters, in terms of death, hunger, malnutrition, displacement and forced migration. Building appropriate social protection floors should form a major part of these efforts. Integrating disaster risk reduction into sustainable development strategies — by strengthening risk assessment, disaster prevention and humanitarian responses — will be critical to protecting the gains of development, particularly among those most deprived. 77. Making the cities of the future sustainable is equally important. Rapidly expanding urban spaces need to be environmentally sustainable, energy- and resource-efficient, disaster-resilient and free of the deprivations and other problems of slum-dwellings, as well as able to ensure affordable energy and basic services for all residents, and to generate decent jobs and livelihoods.

78. In all these areas, technology transfer, capacity-building and international cooperation will be critical for sustainable progress, especially for developing countries. Building “knowledge societies”, more sustainable lifestyles, access to quality life-long education, freedom of expression and cultural and linguistic diversity will be essential for transformative development based on the principles of human rights, equality and sustainability.

79. Improving access to geographical information and geospatial data, and building capacities to use scientific information in areas such as climate monitoring, land use planning, water management, disaster risk reduction, health and food security, will allow for more accurate environmental and social impact assessments and more informed decision-making at all levels.

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

iii.

Inclusive economic development

80. Sustainable development involves stable, equitable and inclusive economic growth, based on sustainable patterns of production and consumption. Inclusiveness is broader than just a pro-poor focus. It implies universality and focuses not only on those defined as poor, but also on vulnerable populations in precarious livelihoods. It is a dynamic concept as people can move out of poverty, but may still remain vulnerable. This will require a broad approach to macroeconomic policies: an approach that aligns the imperatives of macroeconomic stability and financial sustainability with broader structural development policies enabling adequate generation of productive employment and decent work, reduction of poverty and inequalities, low-carbon as well as resource-and waste-efficient economic growth, and welfare protection.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

Sustainable development involves stable, equitable and inclusive economic growth

â&#x20AC;?

81. Better governance of the economic and financial sectors will be key to maintaining regulatory frameworks that respect human rights and protect the environment. The realities of economic and trade interdependence will also require stronger policy consistency and coordination, as well as partnerships and institutional capacitybuilding across countries and regions, not least to build resilience against economic shocks.

82. Growth strategies for the future should give immediate priority to dealing with the global jobs crisis and support productive activities to create full employment and decent work. Women, young people and members of disadvantaged groups should be accorded special attention. This calls for the integration of employment objectives into macroeconomic frameworks, national development plans and poverty reduction strategies. Full respect for human rights at work, labour market policies that promote decent work, social security guarantees, the removal of structural barriers to labour markets and policies that foster productive investment, sustainable enterprise development and entrepreneurship, such as expanded access to financial services, should be key components of broad-based, inclusive economic development. 83. Tailored to country-specific needs, strategies should prioritize productivity-enhancing investments that generate inclusive and green growth, including in sustainable agricultural and industrial productivity, physical infrastructure, information technology, and in health and education of all people.

84. Inclusive economic development will also depend on ensuring access to land, natural resources, energy inputs and services for smallholder farmers, many of whom are women, to support truly sustainable food production and consumption. Sustained growth in smallholder agriculture is of particular importance to poverty reduction in the many countries where large numbers of poor and hungry families and women depend on farming as their main source of livelihood.

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

Photo Credit: UN Photo

85. The dynamism of migrants and their economic and other contributions to both their countries of origin and host countries need to be more fully harnessed, above all by recognizing migrants as positive agents of innovation with human rights. Better managing migration, both in countries of origin and destination, will be essential. 86. Education — understood as the transmission, acquisition, creation and adaptation of knowledge, skills and values — is indispensable for inclusive economic development. In this perspective, children, young people and adults are dynamic participants and contributors to the learning process. Basic education is a human right in itself and a condition for the realization of other rights. It is also a foundation for inclusive economic growth and transformative change. It must be complemented by further educational and training provisions, including tertiary and vocational programmes, to maintain a labour force that can respond to changing economic opportunities.

87. Science and technology, and information derived from their application, will be a major source of innovation for development. Partnerships to strengthen the scientific and engineering capabilities of developing countries, together with global and regional coordination to foster research, product development, and technology access, transfer and adaptation, will be crucial for enabling transformative development. Among many examples, technology, information networks and people-led innovation will help drive progress towards food and nutrition security, affordable health services, sustainable energy use and natural resource management, greater resilience to shocks, effective responses to climate change and more equitable and sustainable patterns of consumption and production. 88. The multilateral trade, finance and environmental architectures will need to be reassessed to ensure greater coherence such that they can more

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

Photo Credit: iStock Photo

effectively enable implementation of the post-2015 agenda. Democratic deficits in some of the institutions of global governance will need to be addressed to ensure legitimacy in their decision-making. Greater coherence will also need to be sought between global and regional mechanisms of global governance.

iv.

Peace and security

89. Peace and security, including freedom from political persecution, discrimination and all forms of violence, are critical for development and a major component of it. At the same time, experience shows — and intergovernmental agreements explicitly recognize — peace and security, development and human rights as interlinked and mutually reinforcing. 45 This applies not only in areas affected by armed conflict, where the restoration of peace and security is an overriding imperative, but in all societies, including those with significant levels and often multiple and hidden forms of violence and injustice.

“

90. Meeting the imperatives of peace and security is often most urgent for highly vulnerable populations, including women and girls, children and the aged, people with disabilities, migrants, refugees, internally displaced, stateless persons and indigenous and minority groups. Preventing conflicts and ensuring security for these groups is dependent not only on goodwill and solidarity, but also on effective systems of justice and recourse and inclusive political processes, available and accessible to everyone. Strengthening 45

General Assembly resolution 60/1 of 16 September 2005.

Implementation of a post-2015 development agenda will depend, critically, on effective governance capacities

”

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

Photo Credit: UN Photo

cultures of peace and tolerance and building state capacities to ensure peace and security is essential in all countries and particularly pressing in so-called “fragile states”.

91. The prevention and reduction of all forms of violence and abuse — and protection against their specific manifestations, including trafficking in human beings, torture, organized crime, the press-ganging of children, drug-related criminality, sexual abuse and labour exploitation — should be at the heart of any agenda which fully recognizes the centrality of human security, both as a human rights imperative and as integral to development. Furthermore, as gender-based violence is one of the worst and most pervasive manifestations of inequality and discrimination, particular attention must be paid to ending all forms of violence against women and girls.

92. Implementation of a post-2015 development agenda will depend, critically, on effective governance capacities at national, local and municipal levels, including political commitment and leadership; and on the legal and economic empowerment of people, especially those most excluded, and of their civil society organizations, to participate effectively in national and local decisionmaking. As such, governance is an essential issue within all four of the dimensions outlined above.

93. Governance must be based on the rule of law, including compliance with international laws, and principles of inclusion and participation. International, national and local institutions must strive to be transparent, accountable, responsive and competent. Stakeholder engagement and participation of all groups in society, judicial independence, access to information and freedom of expression, combined with regular monitoring based on agreed benchmarks, will together form the basis of good governance. Effective governance is also central to the systemic transformations of economies in ways that support rights-based, equitable and sustainable development.

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

Photo Credit: iStock Photo

Shaping the global development agenda

Key considerations in shaping the global development agenda

94. The vision proposed above for the post-2015 UN development agenda aims to provide a more holistic guide to international and national policymaking than that provided by the MDG framework. Such a global development agenda would also provide the overarching framework for related agendas, such as the outcome of the Istanbul Plan of Action for the LDCs and the outcomes of the major ongoing or forthcoming intergovernmental processes addressed in section VI and listed in Annex III. 95. In the process of defining the post-2015 agenda, the international community should be cautious of three dangers: overloading, being either too prescriptive or too vague, and donor-centrism.

96. First, the search for a more comprehensive approach runs the risk of overloading the post-2015 UN development agenda. The success of the MDGs is due to their clarity, conciseness and measurability. A structured approach based on principles, broad objectives and specific goals and targets, and enablers, such as that very tentatively presented in Figure 1, should help avert this risk. While challenging, due

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

The international community should be cautious of three dangers: overloading, being either too prescriptive or too vague, and donor-centrism

â&#x20AC;?

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

consideration will need to be given to the strong interdependencies among economic and social development, environmental sustainability and peace and security when defining the concrete goals and targets of the post-2015 UN development agenda.

97. Second, there is the risk of making the agenda too prescriptive. The focus on outcomes and the absence of guidance on the means of implementation in the MDG framework has encouraged some more prescriptive policy recommendations. However, this risks a one-size-fits-all approach and potential clash with the principle of national ownership. As indicated, the general principles of human rights, equality and sustainability could be used to provide overall guidance for priority setting and choosing among policy options.

98. Third, given outstanding deficits, meeting basic human development goals and addressing the needs of people living in the most vulnerable countries must remain central to any post-2015 development agenda. Yet, this should be done in a way that does not perpetuate the current perception of the global partnership for development as being, in essence, a donor-recipient relationship. This will require ensuring, through a broad consultative process, that the goal- and target setting of the agenda at large is relevant to all countries and that the global partnership is redefined to serve these collective goals.

Possible format of the agenda

99. It is too early to discuss what the precise goals and targets of the post2015 UN development agenda might entail. Various processes will need to run their course first, including the broader consultation processes about the vision for the post-2015 agenda and related discussions about sustainable development goals called for in the Rio+20 Outcome. Some basic features of the format may be suggested, however, and serve as a reference for those consultations. A limited set of universal goalsâ&#x20AC;Ś

100. Global targets encourage all nations to accelerate progress, even though their applicability can only be judged in country-specific context, considering initial conditions. The global targets that made a difference as part of the MDG framework and other agendas share the following characteristics: engaging, clear, few in number, ambitious yet feasible, measurable and with far-reaching and long-term positive implications for development.

101. The objectives captured by the MDGs could be consolidated under the four different dimensions, which would provide continuity, though some goals may need to be defined in a broader sense to capture the global challenges ahead. As an example, the educational goal would go beyond improving access to schooling (quantity) to emphasize improving the relevance and quality of education at all levels. Improving nutrition would include reducing both under-nutrition, particularly stunting, and obesity. Eradicating hunger and ensuring food and nutrition security would comprise the four pillars of food availability, access, utilization and stability, including sustainable food production and consumption systems.

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

102. The consultation process for the post-2015 UN development agenda should focus on the pertinence of the four dimensions of the proposed framework for setting a core set of collective goals and targets and how those should be adapted to different contexts. At the same time, it will be indispensable to resist any unnecessary complexity. Simplicity and succinctness in preparing the agenda will be vital to ensure its focus and ultimate development impact. This will demand tough choices. …but one size does not fit all

103. Global goals and targets should not be confused with national targets. Development processes are context specific. Therefore, to be meaningful, global goals and targets must be tailored and adapted to national and regional contexts and initial conditions. It is not necessary that each country fully attains global targets in order for the world to attain them.

“

Global goals and targets must be tailored and adapted to national and regional contexts and initial conditions

104. General principles and key practices for rights-based, equitable and sustainable development, as laid out in the vision, would provide overall guidance for priority setting and choosing among policy options. Based on these principles, a number of clearly defined “development enablers” could be spelled out, as suggested in section IV. This would contribute to coherence among policies primarily at the (sub-) national level, but where relevant, also at the regional and global levels. Examples of the enablers include policies relating to issues such as sustainable food and nutrition security, protection of ecosystems; access to technology and knowledge; macroeconomic policies that are pro-poor, pro-employment and pro-environment; a trading environment that contributes to sustainable economic growth; good governance; and well-managed migration. Development of such enabling policies would by their nature be context specific and nationally driven, based on the specific challenges that each and every country is facing. Results of these policies could be monitored through performance as well as other indicators, some of which could be internationally agreed and others nationally defined.

Reshaping the global partnership for development

105. The global partnership for development should be reoriented given the changed context, new actors and new challenges and be directly linked to the dimensions of the post-2015 agenda. Sustained economic growth for reduction of poverty, inequality and vulnerability will require strengthened partnerships among governments, the private sector and civil society to make sure that international trade, national and foreign direct investments contribute to productive employment creation, economic security and investments in health, education, rural development, water and sanitation while safeguarding human rights and empowering women.

”

“

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

106. Moreover, the expected emphasis of the post-2015 UN development agenda on sustainable development — a truly global challenge — will have significant implications for how the global partnership for development should be constructed. The global partnership itself should also be truly global and contain goals for all stakeholders. Policy coherence will become even more important, across policies relating to trade, investment, the environment and development.

The global partnership itself should also be truly global

107. The global partnership must encompass all forms of partnerships between governmental and non-governmental actors Partnerships to implement a post-2015 UN development agenda should reflect the full range of actors that have the potential to support sustainable development (governments, civil society, the private sector and foundations). They should include specific actions and resources for vulnerable population groups and countries, in particular, LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS. Such partnerships should also be encouraged at all levels (global, regional, national and local), depending on the issues to be addressed and the context.

”

108. A reshaped and reinvigorated global partnership for development will also be essential to improve management of migration flows and to enhance their contribution to the creation of wealth, trade, jobs and social empowerment. Knowledge sharing and the transfer of technology in the areas of information and telecommunications, agriculture, disease prevention and management, disaster relief and mitigation, and energy will be increasingly important for food security and nutrition, global health and efforts to reduce the impacts of climate change. Access to these technologies and knowledge should be facilitated through the global partnership.

109. The global partnership needs to include North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation New partnerships — including North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation, with participation from civil society organizations, the private sector, and philanthropy — should be formed in a transparent way, in collaboration with the presumed beneficiaries and with a clear framework for monitoring and mutual accountability. Recent progress made in rethinking traditional development assistance and shifting from the current focus on “aid effectiveness” to more purposeful “development effectiveness” will be instrumental in redefining the global partnership for development in ways such that it would be a forceful enabler for the implementation of the post-2015 agenda.

110. Consideration could be given to building a dual structure for partnerships within the post-2015 framework, including one component where partnerships are mainstreamed under each thematic goal, which would allow a stronger link between the goals and means for achieving them, and a second component that supplements the partnerships with a broader “international enabling environment goal”, covering areas of common — and in some cases, differentiated — responsibility.

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

New time horizon

111. To accomplish the necessary transformative change, consideration could be given to a longer time horizon for the post-2015 agenda, possibly from 2015 to anywhere between 2030 and 2050. The pros and cons of a time horizon of 15 years versus one of 25 years or more would have to be weighed carefully. Targets for at least a 25-year period have the advantage of allowing for additional time to accomplish major transformations in the economic, social and environmental spheres. Yet, they may suffer from weaker political accountability because deadlines would be beyond the watch of the leaders who approve them. This risk could be mitigated by accompanying longer-term goals and targets with intermediate ones. 112. Intermediate targets could be set to serve as quantitative goal posts against which world leaders and all stakeholders could review global progress vis-à-vis the longer-term goals, for instance, every five years. Such interim measures and periodic reviews would not only strengthen accountability, but also allow for adjustment or refinement of the long-term goals, based on changing circumstances and experiences in implementation.

Monitoring and benchmarking

113. Performance can be measured in terms of absolute or relative progress. Both approaches are valid but incomplete. Most MDG targets are expressed in relative terms — e.g. reducing poverty by half, cutting infant mortality by two-thirds and maternal mortality by three-quarters. Proportional changes tend to be inversely related to initial levels. That is why one unintended consequence of the way the MDGs were formulated has been to implicitly put a higher burden of achievement on countries with lower levels of human development. Another drawback is that relative targets can be met even as the absolute number of people may have increased due to population growth. 114. There are precedents for formulating global targets in ways that combine relative and absolute benchmarks. For example, the 1990 World Summit for Children set the target of reducing the under-five mortality rate by onethird or to a level of 70 per 1,000 live births by the year 2000, whichever implied the largest reduction. The implications of selecting a particular type of benchmark — or combination thereof — will have to be carefully considered in formulating the post-2015 agenda.

115. Targets should take proper account of population dynamics and different demographic structures across countries and regions and within countries. The clearest expression of these is the changing weights of youth and older persons in societies; different rates of fertility, morbidity and mortality; and urbanization rates. A combination of absolute and relative targets will be needed for an all-inclusive development agenda that takes shifting demographics into account.

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

116. Targets should also be set in a way to measure the prevailing inequalities and sustainability aspects. Defining qualitative indicators and more availability of data disaggregated by sex, age, geography, migrant status and rural-urban location will be critical to monitor both the degree to which development progress is indeed inclusive and sustainable, and the extent to which the needs of the most deprived and vulnerable groups are being addressed. Such indicators and data will also facilitate better assessment of policy effectiveness and contribute to strengthening accountability. However, producing them will require strengthening statistical capacities in most countries.

117. The ability of people to hold institutions accountable — for delivery of quality services; for responsiveness, recourse and transparency; and for setting and adjusting priorities and targets — is key to people’s empowerment. Well-defined, rule-of-law-based performance standards and benchmarks for accountability can generate confidence among the public in their institutions, thereby building support for the global development agenda. Pluralistic, independent media may help raise public awareness about development issues, empowering people with information to better monitor implementation and performance and hold governments accountable. National measures of progress should be complemented with disaggregated data and qualitative information for better understanding of factors contributing to and impeding progress in improving peoples’ lives. These efforts can build on existing household survey programmes, while promoting community-led monitoring, wider access to ICT resources and the use of social media for development.

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

Photo Credit: iStock Photo

VI. The way forward: consultations to forge consensus on a post-2015 UN development agenda a.

Initial guidance from Member States

118. The outcome document of the 2010 High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on MDG progress requests the Secretary-General to report annually on efforts to accelerate progress towards the MDGs and to include recommendations to advance the UN development agenda beyond 2015 in these reports. 46 119. The 2011 Report of the Secretary-General recommended an open and inclusive consultation process, in order for the post-2015 agenda to have the best development impact. 47 Member States have conveyed the same message in recent briefing sessions on post-2015 in the General Assembly and ECOSOC, calling for a Member State-led process of open and inclusive consultations, with early and broad participation by all stakeholders. This has been reinforced in the Rio+20 Outcome where Member States are to constitute an open working group to guide the process of preparing sustainable development goals. 120. 120. Member States have underscored the need to support the capacity of least developed countries to participate in the discussions. They have stressed the importance of other intergovernmental processes feeding 46 47

General Assembly resolution 65/1, op. cit., para. 81. Annual report of the Secretary-General on accelerating progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, op. cit.

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

into discussions on the post-2015 agenda, especially Rio+20. The Rio+20 outcome document (para. 249) has also stressed the imperative of ensuring full convergence of the Rio+20 and post-2015 processes, to arrive at one post-2015 UN development agenda, with sustainable development at its centre.

121. The outcome document of the 2010 MDG Summit further requests the President of the General Assembly to convene a special event to follow up on efforts made towards achieving the MDGs during its 68th session, which begins in September 2013. 48 This could provide an opportunity to lay the foundations for consensus on the post-2015 UN development agenda, ensuring convergence with the process to prepare sustainable development goals.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

122. Member States have yet to take any decisions on the nature of the special event and the timelines for the post-2015 process as a whole. What follows is a possible roadmap for reaching consensus on a post-2015 UN development agenda, including ways of bringing the voices of different stakeholders into the process as well as major milestones leading up to 2015.

The proposed road map is based on a two-step approach

â&#x20AC;?

Proposed road map

123. The proposed road map is based on a two-step approach for supporting Member States to develop the post-2015 UN development agenda. The first step, from now through the special event, is to promote an open, inclusive and transparent consultation process, to take stock and encourage contributions from a wide range of stakeholders. The second step, from the special event through 2015, is to intensify efforts to achieve intergovernmental consensus, while sustaining an open and inclusive process.

Bringing different voices into the process

124. In its global convening role, the UN can bring together the different sets of stakeholders who can contribute to an agenda of human progress and sustainable development, building on agreements by Member States in the Millennium Declaration, the international summits and conference since the 1990s and successive reviews, especially the Rio+20 outcome. It will be important to capture the perspectives and contributions of civil society, the private sector, philanthropic foundations and other development partners. The UN can also bring voices that may otherwise not be heard, such as youth representatives, into the debate and help amplify perspectives of those marginalized.

125. The United Nations Development Group has taken steps to initiate outreach on several levels: (i) supporting at least 50 national level post-2015 dialogues in developing countries to complement the active debates already ongoing in developed countries; (ii) convening nine global thematic consultations; and (iii) stimulating and supporting citizen and stakeholder engagement with the post-2015 agenda, including through an interactive web portal, crowd-sourcing of views, and submission of video testimonies, meeting summaries and artwork. 48

General Assembly resolution 65/1, op. cit., para. 79.

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

126. The outcomes of the national dialogues and thematic meetings and public engagement will be synthesized. How such meetings and processes can feed into the intergovernmental processes should be considered. 127. These different types and levels of outreach can anchor other innovative consultations and processes taking place outside the UN. In addition, the UN Millennium Campaign, the Non-Governmental Liaison Service, the Global Compact and the ILO will play key roles in reaching out to civil society, the private sector and labour.

ii.

Major milestones leading up to 2015

128. A number of important meetings and processes will serve as milestones on the path towards 2015. The Rio+20 Conference has provided critical guidance on how member States will elaborate the concept of sustainable development goals, to be coherent with and integrated in the post-2015 UN development agenda. and launched an inclusive and transparent process for doing so, open to all stakeholders. Within the Rio+20 negotiations, member States have also identified a number of priority areas for sustainable development. Among these are poverty eradication; food security and sustainable agriculture; water and sanitation; energy; sustainable tourism; sustainable transport; sustainable cities and human settlements; health and population; full and productive employment, decent work and social protection; oceans and seas; disaster risk reduction and resilience; sustainable production and consumption; gender equality and women’s empowerment, among others.

129. Other major intergovernmental processes will also help Member States and other stakeholders identify key priorities for a post-2015 UN development agenda; a list of such processes is contained in Annex III. Examples include the 2012 High-level Meeting on the Rule of Law, the 2013 HighLevel Dialogue on International Migration and Development, the 20-year review of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development in 2014, and, in 2015, the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, the 10-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the Beijing World Conference on Women.

“

130. The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on post2015 will convene from July 2012 to provide recommendations on possible components of a post-2015 UN development agenda, as well as to contribute to the overall political process. The Panel will deliver its report in the first quarter of 2013.

131. The decision of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) to initiate an intergovernmental process for the preparation of a proposal for sustainable development goals consistent with the post2015 UN development agenda, provides an opportunity to

The decision of Rio+20 to prepare ... SDGs… provides the opportunity to reach consensus on a unified framework for the UN development agenda after 2015…

”

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

reach consensus on a unified framework for the UN development agenda after 2015 based on the active participation and leadership of Member States and broad consultations with all relevant stakeholders.

132. The General Assembly will continue to provide overall guidance to the post-2015 process. It would be up to the Assembly to identify the parameters for the 2013 special event and, soon after the event, to agree on the modalities for a 2014 or 2015 UN summit on development and for the intergovernmental preparatory process leading up to it. The role of the Assembly will be supplemented by contributions provided by ECOSOCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Annual Ministerial Review and Development Cooperation Forum and its relevant functional commissions and expert bodies, as well as through subsidiary bodies of the Assembly, such as the Human Rights Council.

133. The special event of the President of the General Assembly should be convened with multi-stakeholder participation, as with the 2010 MDG Summit. Drawing upon multiple inputs, the event could provide a platform for an interactive dialogue among Member States and other stakeholders about the possible contours of the post-2015 UN development agenda and, in doing so, provide a basis for subsequent decision-making. It could also yield a call to convene a UN summit on development in 2014 or 2015 to reach agreement on the post-2015 UN development agenda.

134. Based on the outcome of the special event in 2013, more focused discussions could then be launched on the specific format and content of a new agenda, including possible goals and targets to be proposed for intergovernmental agreement. The open working group of Member State experts called for in the Rio+20 Outcome to guide development of sustainable development goals will submit a report, to the sixty-eighth session of the Assembly, containing a proposal for sustainable development goals for consideration and appropriate action.

135. The development of indicators for agreed targets could be tasked to an inter-agency and expert group on indicators, with advice from the UN Statistical Commission, as has been the case with the MDG framework. The group could also be tasked with reviewing the numerical aspects of setting targets, which should be based on accurate assessment of past trends at the global, regional and sub-regional levels.

136. As the deliberations on the post-2015 UN development agenda advance, preparatory work would also need to begin at various levels on monitoring and evaluation systems, accountability mechanisms and mobilization of resources to support implementation of the agenda. At this later stage, the UN system could also initiate work on developing a coherent UN system approach to support the implementation of the agenda by governments and other stakeholders.

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

137. The biggest immediate challenge will be to reach consensus on the contours of an agenda that adequately identifies the development needs of present and future generations, and is capable of crystallizing these priorities in clear, easy-to-communicate development goals that will help guide coherent policy action at the global, regional and national levels.

138. The UN System Task Team is committed to supporting the broad consultation process that is already taking shape, through its analytical inputs, expertise and outreach. Ultimately, the Task Team seeks to contribute to the definition of a post-2015 global development agenda that responds to the aspirations of all people for a world free of want and fear and consistent with economic development, social progress and environmental sustainability.

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

Annex 1 UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda Membership Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Co-Chair United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Co-Chair Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Department of Public Information (DPI) Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) Executive Office of the Secretary-General (EOSG) Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Global Environment Facility (GEF) International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) International Labour Organization (ILO) International Maritime Organization (IMO) International Monetary Fund (IMF) International Organization for Migration (IOM) International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS) Office of the Deputy Secretary-General (ODSG) Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (OHRLLS) Office of the Special Advisor on Africa (OSAA) Peace building Support Office (PBSO) United Nations Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Fund (UNICEF) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women (UN Women) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP) United Nations Global Compact Office

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) United Nations Millennium Campaign United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination Secretariat (CEB) United Nations University (UNU) United Nations Volunteers (UNV) United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) Universal Postal Union (UPU) World Bank World Food Programme (WFP) World Health Organization (WHO) World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) World Meteorological Organization (WMO) World Trade Organization (WTO)

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

Annex 2 Strengths and Weaknesses of the MDG Framework: abridged summarya Strengths

Weaknesses Key conceptualization and characteristics of the MDG framework

The integrated framework influenced policies by giving priority and operational meaning to various dimensions of human development; Simple, transparent and easy-to-communicate framework;

It provided the basis for converging advocacy, thereby helping to strengthen the global partnership for development and directing global and national resources towards poverty reduction and human development; It recognized the special needs of Africa and LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS and strengthened international commitments to address those needs.

Lack of consultations at its conception to build ownership led to the perception of a donor-centric agenda; Excluded some important issues embodied in the Millennium Declaration;

Inadequate incorporation of other important issues, such as environmental sustainability, productive employment and decent work, inequality;

Limited consideration of the enablers of development; Failure to account for differences in initial conditions.

Format of the MDG framework

Clear definition of goals, targets and indicators helped improve policy monitoring and accountability;

Supported the development of countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; statistical capacity and the use of robust data in support of development policies;

Improved statistical system coordination at national and international levels.

Imprecise quantitative targets were set for some dimensions, such as for reducing the number of slumdwellers and several targets related to MDG-8; Failure to account for population dynamics;

Perception of a top-down exercise (from the international to the national statistical systems);

Lack of clarity on how to tailor global targets to national realities and regional dynamics, among others; Lack of attention to disaggregated monitor progress among vulnerable groups, qualitative aspects, and interdependencies across the MDGs.

(contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d)

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

Strengths

Weaknesses MDG implementation

MDG framework promoted concrete actions to address human development shortfalls and the goals and targets were made explicit in national development policies;

MDGs influenced the setting of rather rigid national policy agendas, following international benchmarks, rather than local conditions and often ignoring the complexities of the development process;

Facilitated various forms of intra-regional cooperation;

The way in which “on-track” and “off-track” progress was measured failed to adequately account for considerable progress made by countries with low initial levels of human development (especially in Africa);

Provided a common framework and an improved coordination opportunity for development actors;

Some countries tailored the MDG framework to reflect their own realities, including adding relevant goals, targets and indicators and using disaggregated data across regions and vulnerable groups.

Policies and programmes did not consider the synergies between achieving the different goals and targets;

In the global debate, the MDGs led to overemphasizing financial resource gaps to the detriment of attention for institutional building and structural transformations.

Note a: The above is an abridged version of the strengths and weaknesses discussed in United Nations System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda (2012). “Review of the contributions of the MDG agenda to foster development: lessons for the Post 2015 UN Development Agenda”, available from: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/beyond2015.shtml.

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

Annex 3 Inter-governmental processes of relevance for post-2015 UN development agenda preparations Process

Focus/Priority themes/Purpose

Date

101st Session of the International Labour Conference

1. National Floors for Social Protection (recommendation to be adopted) 2. New programme on youth unemployment 3. Plan of action on promoting the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work

30 May – 15 June 2012

General Assembly Annual Review of Implementation of the Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS and the Political Declarations on HIV/AIDS

Review of progress made in the implementation of global commitments on HIV/AIDS, based on the Report of the Secretary-General with inputs from national reports

11 June 2012

20 – 22 June 2012

Third Development Cooperation Forum (DCF)

1. A green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication 2. The institutional framework for sustainable development 1. Aid quantity, sources and allocation 2. Mutual accountability and aid transparency 3. Policy coherence 4. Aid to mobilize other development finance 5. Impact of the sustainable development concept on development cooperation 6. South-South and triangular cooperation 7. Decentralized cooperation 8. Aid to promote gender equality 9. Private philanthropic organizations in development cooperation 10. The evolving development cooperation architecture Promoting productive capacity, employment and decent work to eradicate poverty in the context of inclusive, sustainable and equitable economic growth at all levels for achieving the MDGs

July 2012

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20)

2012 ECOSOC Annual Ministerial Review (AMR)

5 – 6 July 2012

(cont’d)

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

Process

Focus/Priority themes/Purpose

Date

ECOSOC Special Ministerial Meeting

Strengthening the role of ECOSOC in coordinating the global development agenda, particularly in the context of implementing the outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference and formulating the post-2015 UN development agenda

24 September 2012

High-level Meeting on the Rule of Law

International Dialogue on Peace building and State building

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

2012 ECOSOC Annual Ministerial Review (AMR) Second High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development

High-level Meeting of the 67th Session of the General Assembly on the Rule of Law at the national and international levels for all Member States, non-governmental organizations and civil society represented at the highest level, to discuss and agree on an agenda on strengthening the rule of law 1. Share peace building and state building experiences 2. Gather and discuss good practices and constraints to delivering effective international assistant in support of peace building and state building 3. Identify a realistic set of objectives for peace building and state building that could guide national and international partners 4. Build trust between participating countries and organizations

1. 2012 UN Climate Change Conference: the 18th session of the Conference of the Parties serves as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP18/CMP8) 2. Ad hoc Working Group on the urban Platform for Enhanced Action towards a new climate change agreement to be finalized in 2015

Science, technology and innovation, and the potential of culture for promoting sustainable development and achieving the Millennium Development Goals

Take stock of the main achievements of the Global Forum on Migration and Development process and address the relationship between the Global Forum and the United Nations

24 September 2012

High-level side event at opening of General Assembly 2012 Ongoing

26 November â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 7 December 2012 Ongoing July 2013 Second Half of 2013 (contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d)

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

Process

Focus/Priority themes/Purpose

Date

The International Conference on Nutrition (ICN +20)

Review progress made since 1992, reflect on the existing and new challenges and opportunities presented by the changes in the global economy, in the food system and by advances in science and technologies, and analyze policy options for improving nutrition

2013

(as requested by Member States in the 2010 MDG Summit Outcome Document)

2013/2014 (tbc)

Commission on the Status of Women

Challenges and achievements in the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals for women and girls

March 2014

2014 ECOSOC Annual Ministerial Review (AMR)

Addressing ongoing and emerging challenges for meeting the MDGs in 2015 and for sustaining development gains in the future

July 2014

Marking the end of the UN Decade for Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) the review of the implementation of the UN DESD will draw out the relevance of ESD for the post-2014 education and sustainable development agendas

November 2014

Special Event organized by the President of the 68th Session of the General Assembly to follow-up on efforts made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (tbc)

Fourth Development Cooperation Forum (DCF)

2014 General Assembly Special Session on the review of the 1994 ICPD Programme of Action

UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): Learning Today for a Sustainable Future

Comprehensive Ten-Year Review Conference of the Almaty Programme of Action (Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States)

The 2014 Development Cooperation Forum will focus on how development cooperation will feature in a post-2015 UN development agenda

July 2014

Review the progress in the implementation of the ICPD Programme of Action (PoA), assess current population and development issues, and identify areas for the implementation of the ICPD PoA beyond 2014, based on the ongoing comprehensive operational review of the implementation of the PoA

September 2014

General review conference focusing on issues relevant to LLDCs

2014

(contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d)

Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the Secretary-General

Process

Focus/Priority themes/Purpose

Date

World Conference on Indigenous Peoples

To share perspectives and best practices on the realization of the rights of indigenous peoples and to pursue the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

2014

Review based on the results from two highlevel meetings organized by UNESCO (2013) and ITU (2014)

September 2015

World Conference on Education for All (EFA)

2015 General Assembly Special Session on the review of the Tunis Agenda of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS 2005) Second World Conference on Disaster Reduction

Assessment of progress towards the six EFA goals and way forward for education

April 2015

To review the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 (HFA) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters and to facilitate the development of a post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction as requested by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 66/199

2015

The Commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the Beijing World Conference on Women

(tbd)

205 (tbc)

International Meeting to review the Implementation of the Programme of Action for the sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States

2015

High-level Mid-term Review of the Istanbul Programme of Action (IPoA)

Review of the implementation of the IPoA with a special focus on ODA commitments and consideration of enhancing the resources of least developed countries. The review will cover all priority areas for action of the IPoA: 1. Productive capacity 2. Agriculture, food security and rural development 3. Trade 4. Commodities 5. Human and social development 6. Multiple crises and other emerging challenges 7. Mobilizing financial resources for development and capacity-building 8. Good governance at all levels

2015/2016

10-year review of the Mauritius Strategy for the further implementation of the Barbados Programme of action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States

UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda

For more information on the work of the UN System on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda: Visit: http://dev.un.org/millenniumgoals/beyond2015.shtml or

Contact: Rob Vos, UN-DESA, vos@un.org or Selim Jahan, UNDP, selim.jahan@undp.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(비공식 번역본)

효과적인 개발협력을 위한 부산 파트너십 1. 대한민국 부산에 모인 선진국 및 개발도상국의 국가 정상, 장관 및 대표들, 다자 및 양자 기구 의 대표들, 여러 유형의 공공, 민간, 시민사회, 국회 및 지역기구의 대표인 우리는 효과적인 국제 개발을 위한 공통의 원칙과 목표하에 차별화된 이행을 바탕으로 그 어느 때보다 광범위하고 포괄적 인 새로운 파트너십으로 단합하였음을 인식하고 있다. 2. 남남협력의 성격, 방식 및 책임은 남북협력과 다르다. 동시에 우리 모두는 공동의 목표와 공통의 원칙에 기초한 개발 의제의 한 부분으로 참여한다는 것을 인정한다. 이러한 맥락에서, 우리는 국별 상황에 따라 효과적인 협력을 지원하는 노력을 제고할 것을 독려한다. 부산에서 합의된 결과문서의 원칙, 약속과 행동은 자발적인 원칙하에 남남협력 참여주체의 참고가 될 것이다. 3. 전 세계는 지금 중대한 기로에 서 있다. 빈곤과 불평등은 여전히 핵심 과제로 남아 있다. 새천년 선언(Millennium Declaration)은 보편적인 개발 과제들을 설정했으며, 새천년개발목표(MDGs) 달성 시점이 불과 4년밖에 남지 않은 시점에서 개발도상국의 강하고, 함께하는, 지속가능한 성장과 양질의 일자리 확보를 시급히 달성해야 하는 상황에 처해 있다. 또한, 새천년선언은 인권, 민주주의와 선정(善政)이 개발을 위한 우리의 노력의 중요한 요소라고 정의한다. 취약국과 분쟁국 에서 이러한 우리의 개발 목표를 달성하는 것은 더욱 시급한 문제이다. 이러한 도전과제들을 해결 하기 위해서는 정치적 의지가 필수적이다. 4. 우리는 개발에 대한 의지를 재확인하면서, 60여 년 전 개발협력이 시작된 이래 세계가 크게 변화했음을 인지하고 있다. 경제적, 정치적, 사회적, 기술적 발전으로 세상이 획기적으로 변했 으나, 여전히 빈곤과 불평등, 기아 문제가 지속되고 있다. 새천년개발목표를 달성하고 모두를 위해 보다 견실하고, 회복력 있는 세계 경제를 구축하기 위해서는 개발도상국의 국민들에게 부정적 인 영향을 끼치는 빈곤과 여타 범세계적, 지역적인 문제들이 반드시 해결되어야 한다. 우리의 성공은 질병, 기후 변화, 경기 침체, 식량 및 연료 가격의 위기, 분쟁, 취약성, 충격과 자연재해 에 대한 취약성 등과 같은 문제에 대처하면서 우리 공동의 노력과 투자로 얻은 결과와 그 영향 에 우리가 얼마나 관심을 기울이는가에 달려 있다. 5. 우리는 또한 보다 많은 국가 및 비국가 주체들, 다수의 중진국을 포함한 다양한 발전 단계에 있는 국가들 간의 협력을 포함한 보다 복잡한 개발협력 체계를 갖고 있다. 남남 및 삼각협력, 새로운 형태의 민관협력, 여타 다른 형태와 수단으로 이루어지는 개발의 중요성이 커지면서 남북 협력을 보완하고 있다. 6. 국제개발협력은 그동안 많은 긍정적인 성과를 얻었다. 10년 전 몬테레이 회의에서 우리는 개발 재원 증대와 함께, 모든 국민들을 위한 지속가능하고 투명한 결과를 얻을 수 있는 보다 효과적 인 행동이 필요함을 인식하였다. 부산총회 논의는 개발협력의 질 향상에 대한 기여가 입증된 지난 세계개발원조총회에서 얻은 성과에 기반을 두고 있다. 그러나 우리는 그 진전이 불균형적 이고, 그 속도와 영향 측면에서 충분하지 않았음을 자각하고 있다. 우리는 각자의 약속을 다시

- 1 -

확인하고, 이미 합의한 행동들을 충실히 이행할 것이다. 7. 우리는 우리의 노력을 개선하고, 보다 가속화할 수 있으며 또 그렇게 해야 한다. 우리는 최근까지 비교적 협소한 범위의 개발 주체들만이 참여했던 의제 설정 과정에 참여하기를 희망하는 국가 및 비국가 주체들을 포용하면서, 우리의 협력을 발전, 심화, 확대하고자 한다. 부산총회에서 우리 는 다양성을 포용하고, 모든 주체들이 개발을 지원하는데 각자의 독특한 역할이 있음을 인정 하는 새로운 글로벌 개발 파트너십을 결성할 것이다. 8. 우리의 파트너십은 모든 형태의 개발협력을 위한 공통된 원칙들을 바탕으로 하며, 이러한 원칙들이 적용되는 방식은 각기 다른 발전 단계에 있는 국가들에서, 그리고 이에 참여하는 민관 주체들의 유형에 따라 다르다는 점을 인정한다. 개발협력에 참여하는 모든 주체들이 얻은 교훈은 공유되 어야 한다. 우리는 남남협력, 시민단체 및 민간 주체들의 참여와 같은 다양한 개발협력 접근법 에 따라 창출되는 새로운 기회들을 환영하고, 그러한 개발주체들의 고유한 특징과 각각의 장점 을 인정하며, 그들이 얻은 성과와 혁신을 배우기 위해 협력할 것이다. 9. 우리가 지향하는 효과적인 협력의 최종 목표는 지속가능한 개발 성과이다. 개발협력은 물론 해 결책의 전부는 아니지만, 빈곤퇴치, 사회보장, 경제성장, 지속가능한 개발에 있어 촉매적이며 불가결한 역할을 한다. 우리는 개발협력을 증진하기 위한 각자의 약속을 재확인한다. 보다 효과적인 협력은 개발 재원의 감소로는 이어지지 않아야 한다. 앞으로 우리는 최빈층과 최빈국 에 미치는 영향을 고려하면서 원조에 대한 의존도를 줄여가야 한다. 동 과정에서 단순히 개발 정책만이 아니라 전체 공공정책의 상호 의존성과 일관성을 필히 확인함으로써 모든 국가들이 국제 투자와 교역 및 국내 자본시장의 확대에 따른 기회를 최대한 활용할 수 있도록 해야 한다. 10. 개발 성과를 증대하고 강화하기 위해 협력하면서 우리는 세금과 국내 재원, 민간 투자, 무역 을 위한 원조, 자선 활동, 양허성 공적 자금, 기후변화 재원 등 지속가능하며 포괄적인 개발 에 기여하는 다양한 재원들의 효과를 활성화하고 강화하기 위한 조치를 취할 것이다. 이와 동시에, 새로운 금융 수단, 투자 방식, 기술 및 지식의 공유, 민관 협력이 조속히 마련될 필 요가 있다.

공동의 목표를 달성하기 위한 공통 원칙 11. 우리는 개발협력의 근간이 되는 다양성과 개발협력의 촉매적 역할을 수용하면서, 인권, 양질의 일 자리, 양성평등, 지속가능한 환경 및 장애에 관한 국제적 합의들을 바탕으로, 효과적인 개발을 위한 협력의 토대를 형성하는 아래의 공통 원칙들을 공유한다.

a) 개발 우선과제에 대한 개발도상국들의 주인의식. 개발을 위한 파트너십은 개발도상국들이 중심이 되어 국별 상황과 필요에 맞춘 접근법을 사용할 때만이 성공할 수 있다.

b) 결과 중심. 우리의 투자와 노력은 빈곤퇴치, 불평등 감소, 지속가능한 개발, 개발도상국들의 역량에 지속적인 영향을 미쳐야 하며, 개발도상국들이 정한 우선과제 및 정책과 일치되도록 유지해야 한다.

- 2 -

c) 포용적인 개발 파트너십. 열린 태도, 신뢰, 상호 존중과 학습은 개발 목표를 달성하기 위한 효과적인 파트너십의 핵심이며, 모든 개발 주체들의 차별적이면서도 보완적인 역할을 인 정한다.

d) 투명성과 서로에 대한 책무성. 상호 책무성과 협력의 수혜자들과 각자의 국민들, 기관, 유 권자 및 관련 주체에 대한 책무성은 매우 중요하다. 투명한 활동은 향상된 책무성을 가져 오는 근간이 된다. 12. 이러한 공통된 원칙들은 다음과 같은 우리의 행동을 이끌 것이다. a) 개발 정책 및 프로세스의 민주적 주인의식을 심화, 확대, 운용한다. b) 구체적이고 지속가능한 결과를 얻기 위한 노력을 강화한다. 이를 위해서는 결과 중심의 관리 개선, 모니터링, 진전 상황 평가와 그러한 평가의 전달 뿐만 아니라 지원규모 확대, 국가 역량 강화, 개발 성과를 가져오는 다양한 재원과 이니셔티브의 활용이 필요하다. c) 남남 및 삼각협력에 대한 지원을 확대하고, 이러한 수평적 파트너십이 개별 국가 상황과 필요에 맞추도록 지원한다. d) 개발도상국들이 다양한 형태의 개발 재원과 활동이 갖는 영향을 증진, 활용, 강화하고, 이 러한 다양한 형태의 개발협력 활동이 개발에 촉매 역할을 할 수 있도록 지원한다. 13. 우리는 이러한 행동들이 조속히 이행되어야 함을 인식하고 있다. 우리의 새로운 파트너십이 2015년까지 새천년개발목표를 달성하는데 있어 최대의 효과를 발휘하고, 장기적인 개발 성과 를 가져오기 위해서는 지금 이행하는 – 또는 현재 그러한 노력들이 진행 중일 때는 그것을 가 속화하는 - 것이 필수적이다. 우리는 개발도상국 현장과 국제사회에서 각자의 행동을 이행하는 데 책임감을 가질 것이다. 우리는 개발도상국 현장에서 우리의 약속을 이행하는데 초점을 두고, 정치적 차원에서 이행을 지원하기 위해 새롭고, 포용적인 효과적인 개발협력을 위한 글로벌 파 트너십을 구축할 것이다.

변화의 실현 : 공동의 목표 실현을 위한 보완적인 행동 공통의 원칙과 차별화된 이행에 바탕을 둔 새로운 개발주체의 포용 14. 오늘날의 복잡한 개발협력 체계는 남북협력의 패러다임에서부터 진화했다. 원조 공여국과 수원 국간 관계인 전통적인 남북협력과는 다르게, 개발도상국과 신흥국들은 남남협력의 중요한 제 공국이 되었다. 그들은 개발도상국의 지위를 유지하고 있고, 국내적으로 빈곤 문제를 안고 있다. 이에 따라, 그들은 다른 국가들이 제공하는 개발협력의 혜택을 얻을 수 있지만, 점차 다른 개 발도상국들과 경험을 공유하고 협력하려는 책임을 지고 있다. 파리선언은 이러한 새로운 개발주체 등장에 따른 복잡성을 다루지 않았지만, 아크라행동계획은 그들의 중요성과 특수성을 인정하였 다. 남북협력은 개발협력의 주류로 남아있지만, 남남협력은 지속적으로 진화하고 있고, 개발을

- 3 -

위한 다양한 추가 개발재원을 제공하고 있다. 이제 부산에서 우리 모두는 이들 개발협력 주체들이 공동의 목표, 공통의 원칙과 차별화된 공약을 기반으로 참여하는 새롭고 보다 포용적인 개발 의제 의 일부분이 되었다. 동일한 맥락에서 시민사회, 민간분야와 다른 개발주체들의 참여를 환영한 다.

개발협력의 질과 효과성 개선 15. 그동안 원조효과성 의제가 발전해 왔으나, 여전히 주요한 도전 과제들이 남아있다. 우리는 각자 의 약속을 이행하는 과정에서 문제들에 직면했음에도 불구하고, 원조효과성에 관한 파리선언 (Paris Declaration)과 아크라행동계획(Accra Agenda for Action)의 근간이 되는 여러 원칙들은 보다 높은 수준의, 투명하며, 효과적인 개발협력에 기여했음이 입증되었다. 16. 우리는 이곳 부산총회에서 합의된 약속들이 이행되도록 우리의 고위급 정치적 리더십을 유지 할 것이다. 이러한 맥락에서, 파리와 아크라에서 합의된 행동들을 비준한 우리 당사자들은 각 자의 약속을 충실히 이행하기 위한 노력을 배가할 것이다. 파리와 아크라 이후 중진국, 남남/ 삼각협력 참여국과 시민사회 단체를 포함한 다양한 개발협력 주체들이 공통의 원칙을 바탕으로 각각의 차별화된 약속을 인정하면서, 보다 포괄적이고, 포용적인 의제를 형성하는데 참여해 왔다. 17. 우리는 파리선언의 주기적인 점검과 독립적인 평가를 통해 얻은 증거를 바탕으로, 개발도상국의 우선적인 필요를 충족시키는 지속가능한 결과에 초점을 맞춰, 개발을 위한 파트너십의 효과성 을 개선하는데 필요한 시급한 변화들을 이루어갈 것이다.

주인의식, 결과, 그리고 책무성 18. 우리는 다함께 개발 성과에 더욱 주력할 것이다. 이를 위해, a) 개발협력 제공자들과 함께 공동의 위기관리 프레임워크 개발 등을 통해 위기를 – 피하는 대신 관리하는 접근법을 통한 핵심 제도와 정책을 강화하려는 개발도상국들의 노력과 계획을 지원 할 것이다. b) 개발도상국의 이니셔티브로 개발도상국이 설정한 개발 우선과제와 목표를 바탕으로 적정 수의 산출, 성과 지표를 활용해 개발도상국 주도의 현장에서의 투명한 성과 프레임워크와 플랫폼을 모든 관련 개발주체의 공동의 도구로 채택하고, 모든 관련 주체들과 함께 성과를 평가할 것이다. 개발협력 제공자들은 개발도상국들에게 부가적인 프레임워크 적용을 최소화 하고, 개발도상국의 개발전략과 일치되지 않은 성과 지표를 요구하지 않을 것이다. c) 우리는 진전 상황을 점검하고, 영향을 평가하고, 공공부문이 성과 중심적으로 건전하게 관리 되도록 하고, 정책 결정을 위한 전략적 사안들의 규명을 용이하게 하는 통계 역량을 강화하기 위한 글로벌 행동계획의 이행에 협력할 것이다. d) 우리는 모든 개발도상국에서 상호 평가 검토를 정착시키기 위한 노력을 배가하면서, 모든 개발협력 주체들이 이러한 과정에 적극 참여하도록 독려한다.

- 4 -

e) 아크라행동계획과 관련해서, 우리는 구속성 원조를 줄이는 노력을 가속화할 것이다. 우리는 2012년에 이러한 비구속성 달성 계획을 점검할 것이다. 비구속성은 재화의 가치를 높일 뿐만 아니라 개발도상국의 고용과 소득창출을 제고시킬 수 있다. 우리는 비구속성 원조 보고의 질, 지속성과 투명성을 개선할 것이다. 19. 수원국 시스템 사용과 강화는 효과적인 제도를 구축하려는 우리 노력의 중요한 부분으로 남아 있다. 이를 위해, 파리선언과 아크라행동계획을 바탕으로 다음 사항을 이행할 것이다. a) 개발협력 제공국과 개발도상국의 지배구조와 협력하고 존중하면서, 공적 분야에 지원되는 개발 협력의 기본 접근방식(default approach)으로 수원국 시스템을 활용한다. b) 상호 합의한 진단 도구를 활용해 수원국 시스템을 평가하고, 그 평가 결과를 바탕으로 개발 협력 제공자는 수원국 시스템 활용 범위를 결정한다. 수원국 시스템 전면 활용이 가능하지 않을 경우, 개발협력 제공자는 그 이유를 설명하고, 개선방안을 수원국 정부와 논의한다. 수원국 시스템 활용과 강화는 지속가능한 성과를 위한 국가 개발역량의 전반적인 맥락에서 다루어져야 한다. 20. 우리는 개발 성과를 달성하는데 있어 양성평등과 여성의 역량강화가 필수불가결하다는 점을 인식하고, 국별 우선과제에 따른 개발 프로그램을 통해 양성평등과 여성 역량강화를 위한 노력 을 가속화해야 한다. 양성 불평등의 감소는 그 자체로써 목적이자, 지속가능하고 포용적인 성장 을 달성하기 위한 필수요건이다. 우리는 기존의 약속을 이행하기 위한 노력을 배가하면서 다음 사항 을 이행할 것이다. a) 성별 데이터의 수집, 배포, 조화 및 활용을 위한 노력을 가속화하고 심화함으로써 정책 결정에 활용하고 투자의 방향을 이끌며, 이를 통해 공공지출이 남성과 여성 모두에게 적절 하게 배분되도록 한다. b) 양성평등과 여성 역량강화 목표를 국제적 및 지역적 공약을 바탕으로 한 책무성 체계에 통합시킨다. c) 평화구축 및 국가 재건 등을 포함한 개발 노력의 모든 측면에서 양성평등과 여성 역량강화 문제를 다룬다. 21. 의회와 지방 정부는 시민과 정부를 연계하고, 국가의 개발 의제에 대한 보편적이며 민주적인 주인의식을 보장하는데 있어 중요한 역할을 한다. 의회와 지방 정부의 기여도를 높이기 위해 우리는 다음 사항을 이행할 것이다. a) 적절한 재원과 명료한 행동계획을 통해 역량 개발을 지원하는 등 개발 과정을 감시하는 의회 의 역할을 강화할 수 있도록 기존의 약속 이행을 가속화하고 심화한다. b) 지방 정부가 단순한 서비스 지원을 넘어 지방 단위에서 참여와 책무성을 높이고 그 역할을 충실히 수행할 수 있도록 지원을 강화한다.

- 5 -

22. 시민사회단체들은 국민들이 권리를 주장할 수 있도록 하고, 인권 중심의 접근을 활성화하며, 개발 정책 및 새로운 파트너십을 형성하고, 그 이행과정을 감독하는 중요한 역할을 한다. 시민 사회단체들은 또한 국가가 제공하는 서비스에 보완되는 영역에서 서비스를 제공한다. 이에 대한 인식을 바탕으로 우리는 다음 사항을 이행할 것이다. a) 우리들 기존 각자의 약속을 충실히 이행함으로써, 특히 우리의 합의된 국제 권리에 부합하는 개발에 대한 시민사회단체의 기여를 최대화할 수 있는 환경을 구축하는데 초점을 맞추어, 시민 사회단체들이 독립적인 개발 주체로서 역할을 다 할 수 있도록 한다. b) 시민사회단체들이, 이스탄불 원칙과 시민사회단체 개발효과성을 위한 국제 프레임워크 (International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness)를 바탕으로, 개발효과성에 관한 시민사회단체의 기여와 책무성을 강화하는 관행을 실천하도록 독려한다.

투명하고, 책임 있는 협력 23. 우리는 기존 각자의 약속을 바탕으로 개발협력 및 기타 개발재원에 관한 정보 제공 및 접근성을 개선할 것이다. 이러한 목표를 달성하기 위해 우리는 다음 사항을 이행할 것이다. a) 상업적으로 민감한 정보에 대한 정당한 우려를 고려하여, 공적 자금, 계약 조건, 개발 성과 기여도에 관한 모든 정보를 공개한다. b) 수원국 현지에서 투명한 공공재정관리 및 원조정보관리 시스템을 구축하는데 집중하고, 모든 주체의 역량을 강화하여 의사결정 과정에서 이러한 정보를 보다 잘 활용하고 책무성을 높이도록 한다. c) 개발협력을 통해 제공되는 재원들에 대한 시의적절하고 포괄적이며 미래 지향적인 정보에 대한 전자 공개를 위해 공통의 공개된 표준을 마련한다. 동 표준은 OECD-DAC 통계 보고 및 국제 원조 투명성 이니셔티브(International Aid Transparency Initiative)와 다른 보완적 인 보고 체계를 고려하여 추진한다. 동 표준은 개발도상국 및 주요 비국가 주체들의 정보 에 대한 필요를 충족시켜야 한다. 우리는 2012년 12월까지 동 표준에 합의하고, 각자 동 표 준의 시행 일정을 공개하고, 2015년 12월까지 전면 이행을 목표로 추진한다. 24. 우리는 보다 예측가능한 개발협력을 위해 협력할 것이다. 이를 위해 다음 사항을 이행할 것이다. a) 아크라행동계획상의 재원의 중장기 예측성 개선과 관련하여 약속을 했던 당사자들은 동 분야 에서 각자의 약속을 충실히 이행할 것이며, 필요한 경우 개혁을 추진할 것이다. 이들은 2013년까지 수원국에게 정기적이며, 시의적절한 3-5년 연동 예산안 및/또는 아크라에서 합의 된 사항의 이행 계획을 제공할 것이다. 여타 개발주체들은 개발도상국들에게 향후의 중기 협력 과 관련하여 시의적절한 방식으로 자신들의 의도에 관한 정보를 제공하기 위해 노력할 것 이다. 25. 우리는 개발협력 주체들의 다양성을 환영한다. 개발도상국들은 현장에서 이러한 다양성을

- 6 -

관리하기 위한 협의와 조정을 주도하고, 개발협력 제공자들은 분절화를 줄이고 원조 채널의 확산을 방지할 책임이 있다. 우리는 분절화를 줄이기 위한 노력으로 인해 특정 국가에 대한 개발지원 재원이 감소하지 않도록 할 것이다. 동 목표 달성을 위해 우리는 다음 사항을 이행할 것 이다. a) 우리는 2013년까지 분업, 프로그램 중심의 접근, 공동 프로그램 및 위임협력(delegated cooperation) 등 수원국 주도의 조정 제도를 보다 적극적으로 활용할 것이다. b) 우리는 다자기구, 글로벌 펀드 및 프로그램에 대한 정책적 일관성을 제고할 것이다. 우리는 성과가 높은 기존의 다자협력 채널을 효과적으로 활용할 것이다. 우리는 2012년 말까지 공동 의 노력을 위한 원칙과 가이드라인에 합의함으로써 이러한 다자협력 채널의 확산을 조절하기 위해 노력할 것이다. 다자기구, 글로벌 펀드 및 프로그램은 원조효과성에 대한 각자의 약속 을 지속적으로 이행하면서, 수원국과 지역 및 국제적 차원에서 조정과 상호 책무성 체제에 대한 참여를 강화해 나갈 것이다. c) 우리는 불충분한 지원을 받는 국가들의 문제를 해결하기 위한 노력을 가속화할 것이다. 이 를 위해 2012년 말까지 동 문제의 해결을 위한 우리의 행동 방향을 설정할 수 있는 원칙들 에 합의할 것이다. 여기에는 모든 개발재원이 포함될 것이다. d) 개발협력 제공자들은 현장 직원들에게 불충분한 권한이 위임되는 문제를 해결하기 위한 노력 을 심화하고 가속화할 것이다. 개발협력 제공자들은 개발 프로그램의 기획과 이행에서 재정 권한, 직원 채용, 역할 및 책임의 위임을 포함한 운영의 모든 측면을 검토하고, 남아 있는 장애를 해결하기 위한 조치를 시행할 것이다.

분쟁 및 취약한 상황에서 지속가능한 개발의 증진 26. 취약국들은 대체로 새천년개발목표의 달성에서 벗어나 있다. 새천년개발목표의 달성은 취약국 들이 직면하고 있는 고유한 문제들을 이해하고, 그러한 문제들을 극복하고 지속적인 개발을 위한 기반을 다지는 우리 공동의 역량에 달려 있다. 우리는 취약과 분쟁국가로 구성된 G7+ 국가가

참여한

평화구축

및

국가재건에

관한

국제대화(International

Dialogue

Peacebuilding and Statebuilding)에서 구축된 뉴딜(New Deal)을 환영한다. 뉴딜을 승인한 주체들은 이를 이행하기 위해 노력할 것이며, 이 과정에서 우리는 다음 사항을 이행할 것이다. a) 평화구축 및 국가재건 목표(Peacebuilidng and Statebuilding Goals) - 적법한 정치, 치안, 정의, 경제적 기반, 세입과 공정한 서비스에 우선순위 부여 - 를 취약국가 및 분쟁국가에서 새천년개발목표 달성을 가능하게 하는 중요한 근거로 활용한다. b) 취약국가에서 수원국이 주인의식을 갖고 주도하는 새로운 협력방식에 중점을 둔다. c) 보다 나은 성과를 위해 투명성 개선, 수원국 시스템 활용에 따른 위험관리, 국가 역량배양, 원조의 시의 적절성과 예측성 제고 약속에 대한 신뢰를 구축한다.

- 7 -

역경에 처한 상황에서 취약성을 줄이고 복원력을 강화하기 위한 파트너십 27. 우리는 특히 소규모의 저개발 도서국처럼 극도로 취약한 상황에서, 개발 전략과 프로그램이 충격(shocks)으로 인해 위기에 처한 사람들과 사회의 복원력을 구축하는 일을 우선과제로 삼 도록 해야 한다. 복원력과 위기 감소에 대한 투자는 개발 노력의 가치와 지속가능성을 높인 다. 이를 위해 우리는 다음 사항을 이행할 것이다. a) 개발도상국들은 충격에 대한 복원력과 재난관리 조치를 수원국의 정책과 전략에 주도적으 로 통합할 것이다. b) 개발도상국들이 명시한 필요에 따라 우리는 충격방지 인프라와 위험에 노출된 공동체를 위 한 사회보호시스템에 투자하기 위해 협력할 것이다. 또한, 우리는 수원국 현지 및 지역 차 원에서 재난관리를 위한 자원, 계획, 기술 제공을 증가시킬 것이다.

효과적인 원조에서 효과적인 개발을 위한 협력으로 28. 원조는 개발문제 해결방안의 일부분일 뿐이다. 지금은 우리의 초점과 관심을 원조효과성에서 효과적인 개발의 문제로 확대할 시점이다. 여기에는 개발을 위한 프레임워크가 요구된다. 동 프레임워크 안에는 다음 사항이 포함되어야 한다. a) 강력하고 지속가능하며 포용적인 성장이 개발을 견인한다. b) 자국의 개발에 필요한 재원을 동원하는데 있어 정부의 자체 재원이 보다 많은 역할을 담당 한다. 이로써 정부가 달성한 개발 성과에 대해 국민들에게 책임을 질 수 있게 된다. c) 효과적인 국가 및 비국가 기관들은 자체적인 개혁을 설계 및 실행하고 상호 책무성을 갖는다. d) 개발도상국들은 지역적 및 지구적으로 점차 통합되면서 세계경제에서 보다 나은 경쟁우위를 확보할 수 있는 규모의 경제를 창출한다. 이를 위해, 우리는 합의된 국제적 권리와 규범에 따라 원조가 사용되는 방법과 대상을 재검토함으로써 원조가 개발의 촉매 역할을 하도록 할 것이다. 29. 효과적인 제도 및 정책은 지속가능한 발전을 위해 중요하다. 필요할 경우 핵심적인 국가 기능을 이행하는 제도는 강화해야 하며, 이와 함께 개발협력 제공자들의 정책과 관행이 개발도상국에 의해 재원을 활용할 수 있도록 해야 한다. 개발도상국은 이러한 제도를 현지 상황과 서로 다른 발전 단계에 맞게 강화할 것이다. 이를 위해, 우리는 다음 사항을 이행할 것이다. a) 개발도상국 주도로 제도 및 정책 변화가 이루어지도록 지원하고, 이를 통해 정부, 지방 제도, 지역기구, 의회, 시민사회를 포함한 효과적인 재원을 동원하고 서비스를 제공하도록 한다. b) 개발도상국 주도로 국별 제도, 시스템, 역량 개발을 평가한다.

- 8 -

c) 개발도상국 주도로 제도 성과에 대한 개선된 근거 개발을 지원하여 정책 입안, 이행 및 책임을 갖게 한다. d) 지역 및 글로벌 차원에서 상호 지식과 경험을 공유하여 제도개혁의 성공요인의 습득을 심화 한다.

지속가능한 개발을 위한 남남 및 삼각협력 30. 지속가능한 개발에 대한 논의는 재정적 협력을 훨씬 넘어서서 모든 개발주체 및 국가의 지식 과 개발 경험으로까지 확장된다. 특히 남남 및 삼각협력은 각국의 상황에 적합하고 효과적이며 지역적인 주인의식을 갖는 해결책을 실현함으로써 개발도상국들의 서비스 전달 정책과 접근법 을 바꿀 수 있는 잠재력이 있다. 31. 우리는 남남협력에 참여하는 많은 국가들이 다양한 재원과 전문성을 동시에 주고 받는 점을 인식 하며, 이것이 협력을 증진하되 해당국이 다른 재원을 지원받을 가능성을 저해하지 않아야 한 다고 믿는다. 우리는 다음 사항을 통해 지식과 상호 학습을 강화할 것이다. a) 적절한 경우, 개발협력에 대한 삼각접근의 사용을 증진한다. b) 남남 및 삼각협력 접근법이 지금까지 거둔 성공을 인정하고 이를 보다 적극 활용한다. c) 개발도상국들이 축적한 중요한 지식의 보고(knowledge pools)에 대한 접근성을 증진하는 수단으로써 남남협력 주체들 간의 지식 교환, 상호 학습 및 협력 네트워크의 개발을 독려한다. d) 남남/삼각협력에 효과적으로 참여하기 위한 지방, 국가 역량강화를 지원한다.

민간부문과 개발 32. 우리는 혁신, 부, 소득, 일자리 창출, 국내 자원의 활용에 있어 민간부문이 핵심적인 역할을 한다는 사실을 인정한다. 동 목표를 위해서 우리는 다음 사항을 이행할 것이다. a) 재계의 대표적인 조직들, 노조 및 여타 관련 주체와 협력하여 민간투자 개발을 위한 법적, 규제, 행정 환경을 개선하고, 외국인직접투자 및 민관 파트너십의 증대, 평등한 방식, 특히, 국가 및 지역적 차원을 고려한 가치 사슬(value chain) 강화, 개발 목표 지원 노력의 강화 를 위한 건전한 정책과 규제 환경을 구축한다. b) 지속가능한 성장을 촉진하는 개발 정책 및 전략을 기획하고 구현하는 과정에 민간부문의 참여를 가능하게 한다. c) 공동의 개발 목표를 달성하는데 민간 재원을 동원할 수 있는 혁신적인 금융체계를 더욱 발전 시킨다.

- 9 -

d) 성과와 영향에 중점을 둔 지속가능한 개발의 동력으로써 "무역을 위한 원조"를 증진하여, 시장의 실패에 대처하고, 자본시장에 대한 접근성을 강화하며, 민간부문 주체들이 직면한 위기를 완화시킬 수 있는 접근법을 증진한다. e) 민관부문 및 관련 단체의 대표들이 개발과 사업 성과를 동시에 증진하는 방법을 적극적으로 모색함으로써 서로에게 도움이 되도록 한다.

부패와 불법적 흐름의 척결 33. 부패는 글로벌 개발을 심각하게 저해하고, 개발 재원으로 이용될 수 있는 자원을 분산시키 며, 거버넌스 기관의 질을 저해하고, 인간 안보를 위협하는 병폐이다. 부패는 범죄를 양산하 며 분쟁과 취약성으로 이어지는 경우가 많다. 우리는 유엔 반부패협약(UN Convention Against Corruption) 및 OECD 뇌물방지협약(Anti-Bribery Convention)과 같은 협약들을 바탕 으로 부패와 불법적 흐름을 척결하기 위한 공동의 노력을 강화할 것이다. 동 목표를 달성하기 위해 우리는 다음 사항을 이행할 것이다. a) 부패 척결에 대한 각자의 약속을 충실히 이행하고, 모든 부패 관행에 대해 무관용 문화와 법률을 강화한다. 여기에는 재정 투명성 강화, 독립적인 감독기구의 강화, 내부 고발자에 대한 보호 확대 등의 노력이 포함된다. b) 돈세탁 방지 조치를 강화하고, 탈세 관행에 대처하고, 불법 자산의 추적, 동결 및 회수를 위한 국가 및 국제 정책, 법체계 및 제도적 장치를 강화함으로써 불법 자금의 흐름을 척결 하기 위한 개별 노력을 가속화한다. 여기에는 효과적인 국제협력을 촉진하는 법 제정과 관행 이행이 포함된다.

기후변화 재원 34. 중기적인 측면에서 볼 때 기후변화 재원이 크게 증가할 것으로 예상된다. 우리는 동 재원이 새로운 기회와 도전을 가져올 것임을 인지하고, 기후변화 재원과 보다 포괄적인 개발협력을 위한 우리의 접근법 전반에서 일관성과 투명성, 예측가능성을 증진하기 위해 노력할 것이다. 여기에는 다음 사항을 포함한다. a) 개발도상국들의 전반적인 국가 개발계획의 필수적인 부분으로써 국가의 기후변화 정책과 계획을 지속적으로 지원하고, 적절한 경우, 개발도상국의 시스템을 통해 이러한 조치들이 투명한 방식으로 재원을 확보하고, 전달되고, 점검되도록 한다. b) 기후변화 활동에 참여하는 주체들과 함께 개발효과성에서 얻은 교훈을 지속적으로 공유하고, 기후변화 재원의 전달 과정에서 얻은 혁신이 보다 포괄적인 개발협력에 기여하도록 한다.

앞으로 나아갈 길 : 새천년개발목표를 향한, 그리고 이를 넘어선 진보를 위한 파트너십 35. 우리는 원조효과성에 관한 파리선언 및 아크라 행동계획에 명시된 약속에 더하여, 부산총회에서 합의된 약속과 행동계획이 성과를 거둘 수 있도록 상호 책임을 질 것이다. 동 목표를 달성하기

- 10 -

위해 우리는 다음 사항을 이행할 것이다. a) 개별 개발도상국에서, 협력의 효과성과 개발 프로세스를 개선하기 위한 우리 노력의 진전상황 을 점검하고 상호 책무성을 증진하는 국별 개발 수요와 우선과제에 기반을 둔 프레임워크 에 합의한다. 우리가 합의한 이러한 프레임워크와 지표 및 목표들은 개별 국가의 구체적인 상황과 수요에 맞출 것이며, 각국의 원조 및 개발 정책을 바탕으로 할 것이다. 또한 이러한 활동 결과를 공개할 것이다. b) 2012년 6월까지 약속 이행에 대한 진전 상황을 지속적으로 점검하고, 이에 대한 국제적, 지역적 이행 책무성을 제고할 수 있는 선별되고, 적합한 지표와 목표에 합의할 것이다. 개발 도상국 주도의 이니셔티브에 기반을 두고, 기존 원조효과성 원칙에 대한 점검 경험을 기반 으로 한다. 우리는 Post-MDG 프레임워크의 맥락에서 이러한 조치를 검토할 것이다. 우리 는 정기적으로 이러한 활동 결과를 발표할 것이다. c) 개발효과성 개선 노력의 진전 상황을 점검하고 그 영향을 평가하는 역량을 강화하는 개발 도상국 주도의 이니셔티브를 지원한다. 36. 우리는 협력을 강화하고 공동의 목표와 차별화된 행동을 유지하기 위해서는 글로벌 차원의 포괄적인 대화 노력, 상호학습 및 책무성과 함께 지속적인 고위급 정치적 지원이 필요하다는 사실을 인지한다. 지역기구들은 현장에서의 이행을 지원하고 범세계적 노력과 수원국의 우선과제 를 연계하는데 있어서 중요한 역할을 할 수 있고, 그러한 역할을 해야 한다. UN 개발협력포럼 (Development Cooperation Forum)도 부산총회의 합의사항을 이행하는데 역할을 할 수 있도록 한다. 이러한 목표를 위해서 다음 사항을 이행할 것이다. a) 새롭고 포괄적인 ‘효과적인 개발협력을 위한 글로벌 파트너십’(Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation)을 구축하여, 정치적 수준에서 약속 이행을 지원하 고 책무성을 갖도록 한다. 동 파트너십은 다양성을 포용하는 열린 플랫폼을 통해 지식의 교환과 주기적으로 진전사항을 검토하는 포럼을 구축한다. b) 2012년 6월까지 새로운 파트너십의 가벼운(light) 형태의 운영방안에 대해 합의한다. 동 방안 에는 새로운 파트너십의 구성원, 각료급 인사의 정기적 참여방안, 다른 개발협력 포럼을 보완 하고, 연계하는 방안을 포함한다. c) 원조효과작업반에게 동 결과문서를 승인하는 국가와 개발주체가 참여하는 회의를 개최하여 새로운 글로벌 파트너십 운영방안 및 글로벌 모니터링과 책임을 지원할 지표와 채널을 구축 하는데 합의토록 하고, 2012년 6월까지 원조효과작업반과 관련 조직 활동의 점진적 종료를 준비하도록 요청한다. d) OECD와 유엔개발계획(United Nations Development Programme)에게 지금까지의 상호협력 과 각자의 역할 및 비교우위 영역을 바탕으로 글로벌 파트너십이 효과적으로 기능하도록 지원 할 것을 요청한다.

/끝/

- 11 -

- 12 -

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. ***

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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

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).

■

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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

부산 글로벌 파트너십 출범과 향후 추진계획

2012. 8.

관계부처 합동

목

차

추진 배경 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·1

글로벌 파트너십 개요 및 의의 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·2 1. 주요 기능 및 거버넌스 체제 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·2 2. 글로벌 모니터링 체제 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·3 3. 의의 및 평가 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4

향후 추진계획 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·5

. 추진 배경 (부산 글로벌 파트너십)

□ (집행위원회 진출)

□ (국내 이행체제)

- 1 -

. 글로벌 파트너십 개요 및 의의 1

주요 기능 및 거버넌스 체제 (주요 기능)

(참여 주체)

(운 영 체제)

󰊱 ㅇ

ㅇ ㅇ

󰊲 ㅇ ㅇ

- 2 -

󰊳 ㅇ

(구속력)

글 로벌 모니터링 체제

(목적) ㅇ (실시 주기) '

(글로벌 지표)

- 3 -

(참여 방안)

󰊒 󰊉

의 의 및 평가

󰊱 다주체 개발 파트너십 ㅇ

󰊲 개도국 리더십과 현장 이행 중심 ㅇ

ㅇ

󰊳 느슨한 형태의 개발협력 연대 ㅇ

- 4 -

. 향후 추진계획

(기본방향) ㅇ ㅇ

(주요 이행과제 및 추진일정(안)) ㅇ ㅇ ․ ㅇ

․

ㅇ

- 5 -

첨 부 1 부산 파트너십 원칙, 주요 공약 및 자발적 이니셔티브

4대 공동원칙

내용

공동원칙에 따른 행동방안

공약

상세내역 󰋾

󰋾

󰋾 정치적 전문

󰋾 󰋾

󰋾

원조 효과성 심화

효과적인 개발을 위한 협력 (개발효과성)

- 6 -

󰋾

내용

공약

상세내역

Post-Busan 이행체제

② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧

- 7 -

첨부2

글로벌 파트너십 집행위원회 위원 현황

- 8 -

첨부3

부산 글로벌 모니터링 지표

- 9 -

- 10 -

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.

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

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

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

- 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

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

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

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

Istanbul CSO Development Effectiveness Principles1 Civil society organizations are a vibrant and essential feature in the democratic life of countries across the globe. CSOs collaborate with the full diversity of people and promote their rights. The essential characteristics of CSOs as distinct development actors – that they are voluntary, diverse, non-partisan, autonomous, non-violent, working and collaborating for change – are the foundation for the Istanbul principles for CSO development effectiveness. These principles guide the work and practices of civil society organizations in both peaceful and conflict situations, in different areas of work from grassroots to policy advocacy, and in a continuum from humanitarian emergencies to long-term development. 1.

Respect and promote human rights and social justice CSOs are effective as development actors when they … develop and implement strategies, activities and practices that promote individual and collective human rights, including the right to development, with dignity, decent work, social justice and equity for all people.

Embody gender equality and equity while promoting women and girl’s rights CSOs are effective as development actors when they … promote and practice development cooperation embodying gender equity, reflecting women’s concerns and experience, while supporting women’s efforts to realize their individual and collective rights, participating as fully empowered actors in the development process.

Focus on people’s empowerment, democratic ownership and participation CSOs are effective as development actors when they … support the empowerment and inclusive participation of people to expand their democratic ownership over policies and development initiatives that affect their lives, with an emphasis on the poor and marginalized.

Promote Environmental Sustainability CSOs are effective as development actors when they … develop and implement priorities and approaches that promote environmental sustainability for present and future generations, including urgent responses to climate crises, with specific attention to the socio-economic, cultural and indigenous conditions for ecological integrity and justice.

Practice transparency and accountability CSOs are effective as development actors when they … demonstrate a sustained organizational commitment to transparency, multiple accountability, and integrity in their internal operations.

Pursue equitable partnerships and solidarity CSOs are effective as development actors when they … commit to transparent relationships with CSOs and other development actors, freely and as equals, based on shared development goals and values, mutual respect, trust, organizational autonomy, long-term accompaniment, solidarity and global citizenship.

Create and share knowledge and commit to mutual learning CSOs are effective as development actors when they … enhance the ways they learn from their experience, from other CSOs and development actors, integrating evidence from development practice and results, including the knowledge and wisdom of local and indigenous communities, strengthening innovation and their vision for the future they would like to see.

Commit to realizing positive sustainable change CSOs are effective as development actors when they … collaborate to realize sustainable outcomes and impacts of their development actions, focusing on results and conditions for lasting change for people, with special emphasis on poor and marginalized populations, ensuring an enduring legacy for present and future generations.

Guided by these Istanbul principles, CSOs are committed to take pro-active actions to improve and be fully accountable for their development practices. Equally important will be enabling policies and practices by all actors. Through actions consistent with these principles, donor and partner country governments demonstrate their Accra Agenda for Action pledge that they “share an interest in ensuring that CSO contributions to development reach their full potential”. All governments have an obligation to uphold basic human rights – among others, the right to association, the right to assembly, and the freedom of expression. Together these are pre-conditions for effective development. Istanbul, Turkey September 29, 2010 Please note, the Istanbul Principles, as agreed at the Open Forum’s Global Assembly in Istanbul, September 28 -30, 2010, are the foundation of the Open Forum’s Draft International Framework on CSO Development Effectiveness. These principles are further elaborated in Version 2 of this Framework, which is being updated and will be found on the Open Forum’s web site, www.csoeffectiveness.org. 1

부록 I CSO 개발효과성을 위한 이스탄불 원칙* 시민사회단체(이하 CSO, Civil Society Organization)는 전세계 국가의 민주주의에 역동적이고 필수적인 역할을 하고 있다. CSO는 다양한 사람들과 협력하고 이들의 권리를 증진시킨다. CSO 개발효과성을 위한 이스탄불 원칙의 근간은 CSO가 개발행위자로서 갖는 중요한 특징들, 즉 자발적이고 다양하고 초당파적이 며 자치적이고 비폭력적이며, 변화를 위해 일하고 협력한다는 점이다. 이 원칙들은 평화로운 시기나 분쟁 상 황 모두, 풀뿌리 현장에서부터 정책 애드보커시를 포함하는 다양한 활동 영역, 그리고 인도주의적 긴급상황 에서부터 장기적인 개발에 이르기까지 시민사회단체의 활동과 관행에 지침을 제공한다. 1. 인권과 사회정의 존중 및 증진 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서 발전권을 포함하는 개인과 집단의 인권 – 존엄, 양질의 일자리, 사회정의 및 모 든 사람의 평등을 갖춘 – 을 증진하는 전략, 활동, 실천관행을 개발하고 실행할 때 효과적이 된다. 2. 여성과 여아의 권리 증진 및 성평등과 성형평성 구현 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서 여성의 관심사와 경험을 반영시키면서 성평등을 구현하며, 여성들이 개발 과 정에서 온전히 역량이 강화된 주체로서 참여하면서 그들의 개인적^집단적 권리를 실현하고자 하는 노력을 지원하는 가운데 개발 협력을 증진하고 실천할 때에 효과적이 된다. 3. 사람들의 임파워먼트, 민주적 주인의식 및 참여 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서 사람들이 자신들의 삶에 영향을 미치는 정책과 개발 이니셔티브에 대해서 민주 적 주인의식을 확대할 수 있도록 가난하고 소외된 사람들에 대한 강조와 더불어 사람들의 임파워먼트와 포용 적 참여를 지원할 때에 효과적이 된다. 4. 환경의 지속가능성 증진 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서 생태적 온전성과 환경정의를 위한 사회 경제적^문화적 및 토착적인 조건들에 대해 특별한 관심을 가지면서 기후 위기에 대한 긴급 대응을 포함하는, 현재와 미래 세대를 위한 환경적 지 속가능성을 증진하는 우선순위와 접근법을 개발하고 실행할 때 효과적이 된다. 5. 투명성과 책무성 실천 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서 자신들의 내부 운영에 있어 투명성(transparency), 다양한 측면에서의 책무성 및 청렴성에 대한 조직 차원의 지속적인 헌신을 보여줄 때 효과적이 된다.

* 이스탄불 원칙은 2010년 9월 28일에서 30일까지 이스탄불에서 열린 오픈포럼 세계총회에서 합의된 것으로 이는 CSO 개발효과 성에 관한 오픈포럼 국제 프레임워크 초안의 기반이 되는 문건이다. 이 원칙의 더 자세한 사항은 프레임워크 버전 2에 포함되어 있고, www.cso-effectiveness.org에서 확인 가능하다.

프레임워크 21

6. 평등한 파트너십 및 연대 추구 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서, 자유롭게 그리고 대등하게, 공유된 개발의 목표와 가치들, 상호 존중, 신뢰, 조 직의 자율성, 장기적인 동반 관계, 연대, 그리고 글로벌 시민의식에 기반하여 CSO들 및 다른 개발 행위자들 과의 투명한 관계에 확고함을 보일 때에 효과적이 된다. 7. 지식 창출 및 공유와 상호 배움 추구 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서 개발 관행과 결과들에서 나온 증거를 접목시키고 현지 및 토착 지역사회들의 지식과 지혜를 포함시키며, 혁신 그리고 자신들이 희망하는 미래를 위한 비전을 강화해 나가면서, 자신들의 경험과 다른 CSO들 및 개발 행위자들로부터 배워 나가는 방법을 향상시킬 때 효과적이 된다. 8. 긍정적이고 지속가능한 변화 실현을 위한 노력 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서, 가난하고 소외된 사람들에 대해 특별히 역점을 두고, 사람들을 위한 변화가 지속될 수 있는 결과와 조건들에 초점을 맞추면서, 자신들의 개발 활동의 지속가능한 결과와 영향력을 실현 하기 위해 협력함으로써, 현재와 미래 세대에게까지 지속되는 유산(legacy)을 보존할 때 효과적이 된다. 이스탄불 원칙에 따라 CSO는 개발 관행을 개선하고 자신들의 책무를 다하기 위해 적극적인 조치를 취하 려고 노력하고 있다. 이러한 CSO의 노력 못지 않게 중요한 점은 이를 가능하게 하는 다른 개발 행위자들의 정책이나 관행이 있어야 한다는 점이다. 이스탄불 원칙과 비슷한 취지에서 공여국과 수원국 정부는 아크라 행동강령을 내놓았다. 아크라 행동강령에서 각 국가와 정부는 CSO가 개발영역에서 충분히 모든 잠재력을 잘 발휘할 수 있도록 보장해 주는 데 의견을 모았다. 모든 정부는 기본적인 인권을 지원할 의무가 있고 그 중 에서도 특히 결사와 집회의 자유 그리고 표현의 자유를 보장해야 한다. 이 모든 것이 모여 효과적인 개발의 전제조건이 된다.

이스탄불, 터키 2010년 9월 29일

22 프레임워크

THE SIEM REAP CSO CONSENSUS on THE INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR CSO DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS

AGREED BY THE SECOND GLOBAL ASSEMBLY, OPEN FORUM FOR CSO DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS, SIEM, REAP, CAMBODIA, JUNE 28 – 29, 2011

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION A commitment to strengthen civil society development effectiveness … Millions of civil society organizations (CSOs) worldwide contribute in unique and essential ways to development as innovative agents of change and social transformation. These contributions are long-standing: CSOs support grassroots experiences of people engaged in their own development efforts; are both donors and practitioners of development; promote development knowledge and innovation; work to deepen global awareness and solidarity among people across national boundaries; and they advocate and seek out inclusive policy dialogue with governments and donors to work together for development progress. Acknowledging not only their contributions, but also their weaknesses and challenges as development actors, CSOs have affirmed their commitment to take action to improve and be fully accountable for their development practices. The Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness, a CSO-led global and fully participatory process, has determined the vision and essential principles that define and guide change for effective CSO development practice. In September 2010, more than 170 CSO representatives from 82 countries gathered in Istanbul, Turkey, to consider and unanimously adopt the Istanbul Principles for CSO Development Effectiveness (Annex One). The Istanbul Principles are the result of thorough consultations with thousands of CSOs in more than 70 countries and sectors. The eight Istanbul Principles take into account the diversity of CSO visions, mandates, approaches, relationships and impacts in their development actions. Given the diversity and geographic spread of CSOs, the Istanbul Principles must be applied in meaningful but distinct ways that are appropriate to each CSO local context or sector. The Istanbul Principles are the foundation for the International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness, adopted in June 2011 at the Second Global Assembly in Siem Reap, Cambodia. The Framework sets out guidance for interpreting and aligning CSO practices with the Istanbul Principles in diverse local and sectoral settings. The “Toolkit for Implementation of the Istanbul Principles”, with further elaboration of guidance and indicators, will enable CSO actors to adapt and work with the Framework in the context of their organizational mandates and program realities. CSO development actors are profoundly affected by the context in which they work. The policies and practices of all governments, including when they act as donors, affect and shape the capacities for CSOs to engage in development. Progress in realizing the Istanbul Principles in CSO practice, therefore, depends in large measure on enabling government policies, laws and regulations consistent with the Istanbul Principles. At the 2008 Accra High Level Forum-3 governments committed “to work with CSOs to provide an enabling environment that maximizes their contributions to development.” Since then, many CSOs, in both donor and developing countries, have experienced deteriorating enabling conditions for their work. The Open Forum, therefore, welcomes and encourages further work of the multi-

stakeholder Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment and its Key Findings for the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness as a positive contribution upon which to build and strengthen enabling conditions for CSOs. This International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness is the basis for CSO engagement and collaboration with all development actors, through the BetterAid Platform, to achieve the goals of the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF-4). The Framework creates a renewed opportunity for collaboration and synergies between CSOs, developing country governments, donors and other aid actors, in support of peoples’ efforts to achieve their own development and claim their rights. CSOs call on all governments involved in HLF-4 to acknowledge the outcomes of Open Forum process and endorse the Istanbul Principles as an essential basis for their policies of engagement and support of civil society in development. An understanding of development informs development effectiveness … CSO development effectiveness speaks to the impact of CSO actions for development. These actions for development will be effective if they bring about sustainable change that addresses the causes, as well as the symptoms, of poverty, inequality and marginalization. For CSOs, development effectiveness is linked to multi-faceted human and social development processes directly involving and empowering people living in poverty and discriminated and marginalized populations. CSOs assume no single development model, but rather focus on people and their organizations, empowering them to make choices over how they will develop. For CSOs, development effectiveness requires openness to many development alternatives, which are increasingly informed by human rights, environmental sustainability (the Earth’s limits) and indigenous peoples’ notions of vivir bien (“living well”). People living in poverty and marginalized populations have unequal access to development resources. This inequality has persisted not only because of limited capacities and finances for development, but also because of the concentration of socio-economic and political power and barriers to gender equality and rights of minorities. Effective CSO development action must, therefore, involve CSOs making choices and taking sides. It involves direct engagement with populations living in poverty, not as abject victims, but as development actors and political proponents for development in their own right. The CSO vision of development is informed by the diversity of their roles as development actors, including many CSOs involved in development who are not aid actors (see Annex Two for a summary of CSO roles in development). Increasingly, CSOs work in support of the human rights of affected populations, rather than agents of charity responding to often externally-determined needs and wants.

SECTION II: THE ISTANBUL PRINCIPLES FOR CSO DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS A preamble ... Civil society organizations are a vibrant and essential feature in the democratic life of countries across the globe. As self-governing and voluntary organizations, they are striving to be accountable and effective organizations. CSOs have also been widely recognized as distinct and independent development actors, working for development outcomes for poor and marginalized peoples. CSOs are catalysts for social change, collaborating with partners around shared values and What are Principles for CSO Development interests. Effectiveness? CSO

development

effectiveness

principles

are

statements of values and qualities that should inform CSO socio-economic, political, and organizational relationships. They are universal points of reference for CSO activities in development, emphasizing the impact of these actions on the rights of people living in poverty and marginalized populations.

CSOs are social expressions of diversity and innovation in development practice. They bring a rich array of organizational values, objectives, and means for popular engagement, as well as sector knowledge, structures, interests and resources.

In their diversity, CSO

Development is a social and political process that is equally about peoples’ their relevance to unique locales, sector, governance and participation and engagement to claim their development relationships. rights, as it is about development outcomes. CSOs are, consequently, political protagonists for development change, advocates for and providers of public goods. CSOs collaborate and partner with communities, with each other and with different development actors, complementing development efforts by developing country governments and donors at many levels. development effectiveness is highly dependent on context:

CSOs have close and often unique connections with local processes, but also seek change at national and global levels. But unlike political parties, peoples’ organizations, and social movements, which may aspire to influence development by obtaining formal state political power, CSOs are, for the most part, autonomous non-partisan political actors in the social realm, representing their own point of view. But, in some countries, such as the Philippines, CSOs may also play direct roles within the parliamentary system. CSOs actions for development are also distinguished by a commitment to non-violent processes. CSOs seek to maximize positive results, while being true to the principle of “do no harm”, considering the full range of potential impacts of their development actions. CSOs are channels for social solidarity, for service and mobilization to enable people to better claim their rights and improve conditions of life. CSOs enrich public policy dialogue with knowledge and innovation; they are donors who find and leverage financial and human resources for development. CSOs collaborate and may coordinate efforts with governments to seek development outcomes consistent with international human rights standards. These standards give priority to addressing

conditions of discrimination, dis-empowerment, poverty and inequality. In many countries, CSOs play important roles engaging citizens, defending the rule of law and guarding against corruption of public funds. As voluntary expressions of citizen action, CSOs are a measure of democratic and inclusive development. These characteristics of CSOs as distinct, independent and autonomous development actors – voluntary, diverse, non-partisan, non-violent, collaborating for change, linking development process with results and outcomes – have informed all the Open Forum consultations. The Istanbul Principles, set out in this Framework, are not new. They are the consensus expression of decades of experience by thousands of CSOs involved in the Open Forum process and its consultations. As such, the Istanbul Principles reflect CSO work and practices in both peaceful and conflict situations, in different areas of work from grassroots to policy advocacy and in a continuum from humanitarian emergencies to long-term development. Although the Istanbul Principles are a consensus on essential CSO values that inform their practice, they cannot fully take account the great diversity in numbers, geographic locales, purposes and challenges faced by thousands of CSOs involved in development activities. The Istanbul Principles must be interpreted and applied locally in the CSO’s country and organizational context. The Istanbul Principles are, likewise, not intended to duplicate or replace existing CSO country or sector-specific principles or various accountability frameworks. But rather, the adoption of the Istanbul Principles is a means to stimulate structured reflection, deeper understanding, and accountability for enhanced CSO development effectiveness. This is the purpose of the guidance suggested for each principle in this Framework, which is further elaborated in an accompanying resource, “A Toolkit for Implementation of the Istanbul Principles”.

The Istanbul Principles: Guidance for CSO development practice ... 1. Respect and promote human rights and social justice CSOs are effective as development actors when they … develop and implement strategies, activities and practices that promote individual and collective human rights, including the right to development, with dignity, decent work, social justice and equity for all people. A rights-based approach to development work has been adopted and implemented by many CSOs. CSOs are empowering people to find their voice and secure their rights using holistic approaches, including holding governments accountable to respect, protect and fulfill rights for all people. These approaches address systemic causes of poverty such as inequality, vulnerability, exclusion and discrimination on any basis. CSOs reference important civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights and international human rights standards derived from the United Nations (UN) human rights system, including the Declaration on the Right to Development, the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, core International Labour Organization Conventions, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and human rights agreements at the regional level.

Guidance a) Implement human rights-based approaches to development in all aspects of advocacy, programmatic analysis, design, implementation and assessment, with mechanisms for participation, training and capacity strengthening, and inclusive policy dialogue for holding governments to account. b) Safeguard, support and make operational the rights of affected populations and empower women, who are often excluded, to participate in the design, implementation and assessment of country-led CSO development activities. c) Empower and improve the capacities of affected communities to participate in multistakeholder policy dialogue, seeking and encouraging inclusive policy processes with government, donors and other development actors, based on international human rights law and standards. d) Implement genuine approaches that allow free, prior and informed consent on the part of affected communities and stakeholders. Build the capacity of and educate vulnerable populations about their legal rights and means for recourse. e) Establish measurable indicators for development effectiveness in relation to international human rights standards, including gender equality, children’s rights, disability, decent work and sustainable livelihoods.

2. Embody gender equality and equity while promoting women and girl’s rights CSOs are effective as development actors when they … promote and practice development cooperation embodying gender equity, reflecting women’s concerns and experience, while supporting women’s efforts to realize their individual and collective rights, participating as fully empowered actors in the development process. Achieving gender equality, through addressing unequal power relations and fulfilling women and girls’ rights - in all their dimensions - is essential for realizing sustainable development outcomes. Vulnerability and marginalization of women and girls is perpetuated through various forms of discrimination including economic discrimination, harmful traditional practices, sexual exploitation and gender-based violence. The empowerment of women, through gender equity, promotes equal access for women and girls to opportunities, resources, and decision-making at all levels. Given that women are not a homogeneous category, CSOs stress the need for diversified approaches in order to promote women’s empowerment, safety and well-being, especially for marginalized and disadvantaged groups of women. CSOs also acknowledge that men and boys are crucial partners and need to be fully engaged. CSOs are not free from gender inequalities and practices. Advancing gender equity goes beyond improving practical conditions for women. It is also essential to redress inequalities in power among men and women, tackling discriminatory laws, policies and practices. Women’s participation, per se, is not sufficient to guarantee that their rights and needs will be put forward and defended and that the culture of CSOs will be transformed to

embrace gender equality at the core. Explicitly including the rights and opportunities of girls and young women by CSOs, including for many, women’s reproductive rights, is fundamental to realizing gender equality and women’s empowerment. Women’s organizations and movements are essential actors in development, and have been particularly important as a force for women’s empowerment and democratization.

Guidance a) Integrate and implement gender equality and women’s rights in the constitutive practices of CSOs. Organizational culture must take account of relevant international treaties and agreements, especially the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This integration of gender equality and women’s rights should be reflected in CSOs’ mandate, policies, dialogue with counterparts, genderresponsive allocation of human and financial resources and in capacity-strengthening programs aimed at staff and counterparts. b) Embed gender indicators and analysis, including disaggregated data, in program plans by ensuring CSO planning, implementation, advocacy, monitoring and evaluation are based on comprehensive gender analysis as well as gender equality and women and girls’ rights indicators. c) Invest in partnerships to increase capacities in gender equality and women’s rights, including significant support for women’s organizations and movements. The participation and commitment of men and boys in this process should be encouraged. d) Seek opportunities for collaboration on multi-stakeholder policy dialogue to promote context-appropriate changes to guarantee women’s sexual and reproductive rights, their economic empowerment, leadership and greater control over productive resources, and improved political participation to further their strategic interests.

3. Focus on people’s empowerment, democratic ownership and participation CSOs are effective as development actors when they … support the empowerment and inclusive participation of people to expand their democratic ownership over policies and development initiatives that affect their lives, with an emphasis on the poor and marginalized. Development will be appropriate and effective if it is grounded in the rights, expressed priorities and local knowledge of affected populations. Affected populations are the primary stakeholders in development. As they work to promote human rights and positive change, CSOs must be respectful of the traditions and culture of local communities. CSO empowerment activities build women and men’s collective capacities and their democratic ownership as actors in both their communities and nations and as individuals claiming their rights. Affected populations, therefore, have more influence, decision-making power and resources, giving them more control over factors that shape their lives, free of violence. Democratic ownership over policies and development is of particular importance in conflict and post-conflict situations. When CSOs collaborate in development initiatives with governments, CSOs seek avenues and outcomes for women and men to claim and exercise their rights, while protecting the autonomy and political space for peoples’ movements and organizations.

Guidance a) Focus CSO programming on the empowerment of women and men whose lives are directly affected by development initiatives. Priority must be given to the voice, proposals, development concerns and activities of people living in poverty (with particular attention to the inclusion of women, girls, indigenous peoples, workers, persons with disabilities, migrants and displaced populations) and of social movements representing disadvantaged and marginalized populations. b) Promote participative bottom-up approaches to democratic local decision-making and strengthen engagement with a diversity of local CSO stakeholder voices. Ensure womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s voices are heard in setting priorities for national and local CSO programs. c) Strengthen the voices of women and men living in poverty and of the politically marginalized in determining, advocating and monitoring public policies on development through multi-stakeholder dialogue and the strengthening CSOs as non-partisan political actors in development. d) Treat all participants in development equally regardless of legal status, ethnic background, sex or sexual orientation, disabilities, educational and economic background or age. e) Build awareness of the complex reality of development among public constituencies in donor countries. Development is about solidarity and accompaniment of affected populations in developing countries. It is not about directing change on their behalf. f) When acting as donors, invest in CSO capacity strengthening and sustainable selfdevelopment to enable CSO independence in areas of governance, finance, leadership in program management and advocacy with other development actors. Women and marginalized communities should have leadership roles.

4. Promote Environmental Sustainability CSOs are effective as development actors when they â&#x20AC;Ś develop and implement priorities and approaches that promote environmental sustainability for present and future generations, including urgent responses to climate crises, with specific attention to the socio-economic, cultural and indigenous conditions for ecological integrity and justice. The human rights of both present and future generations depend on development paths and strategies where sustainability within the Earthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s limits is the cornerstone of all development actions. All people have the right to live and work in a healthy and sustainable environment. Complex environmental challenges, including the urgency to mitigate and adapt to climate change, require capacities and skills that advance sustainable ecosystems, human development and are inclusive of all affected populations. Meeting these challenges will demand environmental awareness and innovative solutions. These solutions should be shaped by principles of environmental and climate justice and equity as well as policy coherence. The millions of women and men, particularly in developing countries, who are deeply impacted by environmental degradation and climate change, bear no responsibility for the conditions that have result in the deepening environmental and climate crises. CSOs

must explicitly give priority to local socio-economic conditions and cultural and indigenous approaches in strengthening well-being, biodiversity and sustainability in their development practice.

Guidance a) Explicitly incorporate issues of environmental sustainability into CSO policies, practice, program planning, design processes, advocacy and public engagement. Ensure long-term environmental and ecological integrity, listen to and support local stakeholders and recognize the different gender roles in environmental management. b) Build strategic alignments and collaboration between CSOs involved in environment and development initiatives. Strengthen the ability of both sectors to promote and implement environmental and sustainable development. c) Promote and respect the rights for all people to live and work in healthy environments, and support environmentally friendly practices of indigenous communities. National development strategies and actions and individual environmental responsibilities must be taken into account. d) Promote the right to water, land, food, shelter and greater control over the management of natural resources by people living in poverty and marginalized groups (e.g. indigenous and rural women farmers). Their active participation in environmental governance and decisionmaking on natural resource management should be fostered. Multi-stakeholder dialogues should be used to hold governments and the private sector accountable. e) Influence policies and implement context-appropriate initiatives to reduce the negative impacts of climate change, loss of bio-diversity and all forms of environmental degradation and contamination (e.g. water resources and land). Socio-economic, cultural and indigenous conditions for ecological integrity and justice, based on the knowledge and experiences of affected populations, should be integrated into policies and initiatives. 5.

Practice transparency and accountability

CSOs are effective as development actors when they â&#x20AC;Ś demonstrate a sustained organizational commitment to transparency, multiple accountability and integrity in their internal operations. Transparency, mutual and multiple accountabilities and internal democratic practices reinforce CSO values of social justice and equality. Transparency and accountability create public trust, while enhancing CSO credibility and legitimacy. Democratizing information, increasing and improving its flow among all stakeholders, including political actors, strengthens both civil society and democratic culture. Transparency is an essential pre-condition for CSO accountability. Accountability is not limited to financial reporting, but should strengthen both institutional integrity and mutual public reckoning among development actors, particularly focusing on accountability with affected populations. Community-based CSOs often have particular advantages in implementing local grassroots-accountability processes. Progress in transparency and accountability, however, may sometimes be affected and limited by

challenges CSOs face living under highly repressive regimes and laws and in armed conflict situations.

Guidance a) Promote public accountability and transparency practices as tools to increase CSO visibility and credibility. b) Create the basis for mutual and multiple CSO accountabilities through easy public access to all constitutive organizational policies and documents, including criteria against which partners are funded and regular audited financial and programmatic reports. These reports are, of course, appropriate to the nature and locale of the organization and based on minimum common legal and ethical standards. Access to policies and documents must never endanger lives or the existence of a partner organization. c) Implement practices that sustain mutual and multiple CSO accountabilities, by reflecting on power relationships, being open to challenges and criticisms, ensuring necessary resources and establishing an agreed framework for gender-aware, equitable, inclusive and regular dialogue. A fair mechanism should also be established for recourse to deal with arbitrary and disrespectful actions. d) When acting as donors, provide accessible information on all partner organizations, including sources of funding within a framework of mutual accountability and transparency. The privacy and confidentiality of any information that may endanger lives or a partner organization must be respected. Limitations on access to information may also be implemented if requested by affected organizations, on the provision of appropriate justification. e) Provide timely, accurate and accessible responses to public information requests, including gender disaggregated information. Information should, wherever possible, be available in the appropriate languages. f) Promote and practice a transparent and democratic culture within the organization with accountable and effective leadership, clear assigned responsibilities, transparent operational procedures, ethical information practices, anti-corruption policies and a demonstrated respect for gender balance, human rights standards, integrity, honesty and truthfulness.

6. Pursue equitable partnerships and solidarity CSOs are effective as development actors when they â&#x20AC;Ś commit to transparent relationships with CSOs and other development actors, freely and as equals, based on shared development goals and values, mutual respect, trust, organizational autonomy, long-term accompaniment, solidarity and global citizenship. Effective CSO partnerships, in all their diversity, are expressions of social solidarity. CSO partnerships will be stronger through deliberate efforts to realize equitable and reciprocal collaboration and coordination, based on mutually-agreed goals and shared values. In the spirit of mutual learning, such partnerships contribute experience, expertise and support to CSOs and local communities assisting their efforts in areas that directly affect the future of their communities. CSOs also promote transnational peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; solidarity and linkages for public awareness and citizen engagement in all countries. Effective CSO partnerships for development

require long-term commitments to negotiate common goals and programmatic objectives, based on trust, respect, solidarity and leadership of developing country partners. Organizational autonomy is essential for equitable partnerships. Equitable partnerships result from deliberate attitudes and actions, by all partners, to counterbalance inequalities in power. These power inequalities are the consequence of unequal access to resources, structural and historical inequalities, gender inequities and women’s exclusion, and sometimes-large disparities in capacity. The role of external CSOs is to enable, rather than dictate, and to amplify, not substitute, the voices of developing country CSO actors. Sustained and broadly-shared development outcomes will be achieved through respectful collaboration and deliberate coordination with different development actors, particularly with donors and governments. But CSOs are actors in their own right, not instrumental agents for donors or governments. The basis for coordination must be mutual respect, agreement on the distinct areas where goals and development strategies are shared and equality in setting the terms for coordination and coherence.

Guidance a) Define, clearly and explicitly, the conditions and terms of partnerships in a “Partnership Agreement”. Responsibilities, contributions, decision-making processes and accountability mechanisms must be clearly established through respectful dialogue and in a freely-determined agreement. Adequate allocation of resources is needed to ensure the mutual strengthening of organizations. The participation of and respect for women and their strategic gender needs is critical for determining the conditions and terms of partnerships. b) Build complementary actions by all partners towards shared analysis, programmatic goals and monitoring, rather than narrow project contracts. Invest in and institutionalize long-term relationships rooted in partner leadership, appropriate development strategies, and with appropriate consideration of core institutional support, mutual accountability, dialogue to resolve differences, and the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the partnership. c) Acting as donors, align with partner organizations’ programmatic goals, strategies and administrative systems, wherever possible, and work to harmonize requirements with other donors based on the partner’s systems. d) Strengthen collaboration for solidarity and to create synergies for common cause among CSOs, domestically and internationally. Utilize existing opportunities and structures, such as platforms, coalitions and networks, and encourage new forms of collaboration and inclusion of other development actors such as academics. e) Establish mutually-agreed conditions and mechanisms for ongoing risk management, monitoring, evaluation, information sharing, and co-learning processes. f) Invest in public engagement activities that links domestic conditions and issues to the reality and experiences of partners, promoting direct cross-national engagement, solidarity, and a deeper, subjective understanding and commitment to the relationship.

7. Create and share knowledge and commit to mutual learning CSOs are effective as development actors when they â&#x20AC;Ś enhance the ways they learn from their experience, from other CSOs and development actors, integrating evidence from development practice and results, including the knowledge and wisdom of local and indigenous communities, strengthening innovation and their vision for the future they would like to see. Purposeful collaborative processes for learning provide an indispensable foundation for assessing sustainable development results and impact, as well as enabling synergies among different development actors. Development learning requires effective mechanisms for selfreflection and mutual sharing of information and knowledge. Development learning includes exchanges between CSO colleagues, peers, volunteers, partners, affected populations and other counterparts. CSOs are learning organizations and should make the creation, sharing and implementation of knowledge a key component of their strategies and ways of working. This learning approach must be self-defined, continuous, collective, iterative and based on participation, openness and trust. Mutual-learning processes can help increase respect and understanding between partners, notably in areas of local knowledge, cultural issues, gender relations, values, spirituality and different ways of working. This learning is only possible if the power imbalances that can hinder true mutual learning are acknowledged and addressed. Tailored and adequately resourced capacity strengthening supports organizational learning and is essential for improving CSO development effectiveness. Regular qualitative evaluation, working closely with development partners and related stakeholders is essential to adapting and refining strategies, priorities and working methodologies in CSO development action. Organizational learning, however, should go beyond the more limited processes of â&#x20AC;&#x153;managing for short-term resultsâ&#x20AC;?.

Guidance a) Foster opportunities and a conducive environment for systematic mutual learning and exchange based on participation, openness and trust in institutional and program activities within and between organizations. Lessons learned should inform organizational decision-making processes, thinking and practices. b) Establish professional and ethically responsible methods and tools to engage critically in gathering and sharing reliable data and information on which to build CSO knowledge. c) Encourage collaboration for knowledge-sharing among CSOs through networks, coalitions, and multi-stakeholder dialogue in order to encourage innovation, capacity strengthening and improve development performance. d) Acknowledge and facilitate, in CSO development initiatives and policy dialogue, the sharing and safeguarding of local indigenous knowledge, ancestral wisdom, and spirituality underpinning different approaches to development and the management of natural resources.

8. Commit to realizing positive sustainable change CSOs are effective as development actors when they â&#x20AC;Ś collaborate to realize sustainable outcomes and impacts of their development actions, focusing on results and conditions for lasting change for people, with special emphasis on poor and marginalized populations, ensuring an enduring legacy for present and future generations. CSOs achieve sustainable development outcomes by making long-term commitments, working in partnerships, empowering communities and acting in solidarity with affected populations. Positive development change should also be sustained through the complementarity of development actors and a focus on the root causes of inequality, poverty and marginalization. In post-conflict situations, CSOs play an important part in peace and nation-building efforts. In these circumstances, where the role and the reach of the state may be diminished, CSOs make essential contributions and fill important gaps; but should complement, not substitute themselves for the responsibilities of the state. It is the responsibility of the state to deliver public goods, such as education and health, and be held accountable. The stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capacity, however, to deliver public goods, should be strengthened. CSOs, whose work is often complex and long-term, acknowledge the importance of assessing, demonstrating with evidence, and communicating the impact and sustainability of their work. Sustainable change in CSO work requires a commitment to gender equality, throughout all aspects of development activity. The assessment of the effectiveness of CSO contributions to positive social change, including achieving gender equality, must be shaped by the views of local counterparts and affected populations. The CSO assessment must also take into account the wider socio-economic and political processes that enable or negatively affect the sustainability of CSO development outcomes for change, particularly in conflict or post-conflict situations.

Guidance a) Strengthen CSO collaboration and policy dialogue with other development stakeholders to maximize sustainable impacts of activities and advocacy on shared and mutually-agreed development goals. CSOs should work with government to strengthen governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role to deliver and be accountable for the provision of public goods. b) Engage the private sector in development programs, including initiatives for employment and livelihood-focused economic development, based on respect for human rights standards, democratic ownership, decent work and sustainable development. These efforts should address the needs for sustainable livelihoods in urban and rural settings, promote social inclusion and create access to resources, especially for the informal sector, for women, and vulnerable segments of society. c) Utilize participatory tools for planning, monitoring and evaluating development activities, including program implementation and advocacy. Build the analytical capacities of staff, volunteers and partners with an orientation to determining and assessing conditions for long-term sustainable development outcomes affecting lasting change for

people living in poverty or marginalized populations. d) Improve CSO capacities through comprehensive capacity-strengthening programs covering areas such as equitable partnerships, advocacy, gender equality, networking and facilitation and impact assessment. e) Strengthen the financial sustainability and independence of CSOs by broadening their funding base, wherever possible, in order to reduce dependence on politically-tied or conditioned assistance. f) Engage and educate people as global citizens enhancing two-way communication with counterparts and constituencies on equitable and just development and CSO development effectiveness.

SECTION III: STRENGTHENING MECHANISMS FOR CSO ACCOUNTABILITY CSO mandates are the basis for their responsibility to be fully accountable ... All development actors share a responsibility to demonstrate the results of their interventions and actions, in particular with their primary and most-affected constituencies. CSOs acknowledge and take seriously this obligation, which is set out in the fifth Istanbul Principle â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to be fully accountable and transparent for their development actions and results. As civil society organizations, accountability is shaped by various distinctive organizational mandates, embedded in their work as agents of change for the public good, with people in their communities, and with the public constituencies that support their work. This responsibility is put into practice through the implementation of various CSO accountability mechanisms, responding to different organizational and country contexts. As development actors, CSOs enjoy significant trust by the public and local stakeholders. Most CSOs practice high standards of management and probity. CSOs are, also, continuously responding to legitimate calls to improve their accountability and transparency practices. They have done so by strengthening oversight by elected Boards of Directors, ongoing and transparent dialogue with program partners, clear communications with constituencies, accessible program reports and external financial audits, compliance with government regulatory oversight, and through a variety of CSO-managed Codes of Conduct and transparency mechanisms. CSO accountability mechanisms must also address the mutli-directional nature of their accountabilities, often in both donor and developing countries â&#x20AC;&#x201C; first to primary stakeholders, but equally to peers, partners, public constituencies, public and private donors. While CSOs have a primary responsibility for robust accountability and transparency practices, these efforts can be circumscribed by the constraints of working in difficult political environments. Implementing CSO accountability mechanisms can be challenging where governments fail to protect fundamental human right of marginalized and discriminated populations to organize, participate in public policy and follow community-based development paths.

Examples of CSO Initiatives in Accountability and Transparency 

NGOs for Transparency and Accountability (Colombia) to improve CSO transparency.



The Accountability Charter (global) subscribed by the largest international CSOs.



NGO Aid Map (InterAction – USA) a web-based mapping platform on CSO world-wide work in food security and humanitarian efforts in Haiti.



Code of Ethical Principles and Minimum Standards for NGOs (Cooperation Committee for Cambodia (CCC), Self-certification system to improve governance of CSOs in Cambodia.

The Open Forum’s “Implementation Toolkit” has further examples and sources for CSO mechanisms for accountability and transparency.

CSOs accountability mechanisms assume many forms. These include less formal, sometimes invisible, accountability practices exist in smaller, community-based CSOs. One World Trust has documented dozens of voluntary CSO accountability mechanisms from local to country to global (see the box for examples of some current accountability and transparency initiatives). Civicus, the pre-eminent global CSO network, is undertaking a significant multi-year program (Legitimacy, Transparency and Accountability) to promote peer learning and knowledge sharing on good practice in CSO transparency and accountability.

Recognizing challenges for accountability mechanisms ... CSOs face many unique practical challenges – internal and external – in demonstrating their accountability. Challenges include the large number and diversity of CSO actors, approaches that must respect equitable partnerships, the voluntary basis of organizations and action, unintended outcomes shaped by a changing political environments and the multi-directional demands (legal, contractual and ethical) for accountability. No single accountability model fits all situations and types of organizations. CSOs, therefore, welcome and encourage the sharing of lessons learned in existing practice in order to improve practical approaches to mechanisms that strengthen individual and collective CSO accountability. CSO processes and commitment to accountability means much more than having accessible audited financial records. Accountability for CSOs means maximizing efforts to take into account the views of people living in poverty. CSO accountability mechanisms, however, face some practical challenges on how to measure CSO’s efforts with grassroots communities, people living in poverty and other affected populations. CSOs often work with varied partnerships and in country contexts with vastly different policies and regulations, set by both donors and developing country governments – disabling environments – that can affect the scope for robust CSO accountability. The Istanbul Principles, as values-based principles guiding CSO accountability to development effectiveness, are subject to interpretation. Appropriate objective standards for accountability to these principles will be context specific and sometimes inherently difficult to determine and monitor. This is particularly true for CSOs working in conflict and post-conflict situations.

CSO accountability mechanisms should focus not only on distinct measurable development outcomes, but also on areas such as advocacy and mobilization for change, for which attribution for outcomes is rarely simple. CSOs are fully committed to maximum transparency as a necessary criterion for accountability. But CSOs must also address practical challenges in achieving full transparency, including timeliness, cost, workload, privacy and protection of the rights of partners and vulnerable individuals. Implementation of transparency standards must be sensitive to diverse institutional contexts for CSOs – the scale of the organization, the need to improve organizational systems, training and capacity strengthening for staff and volunteers, improved reporting and audit systems, or a need for dedicated resources for monitoring and evaluation. For many medium and smaller CSOs, associational processes (CSO networks, federations, confederations, etc.) may be indispensible tools for responding through collective accountability mechanisms.

Strengthening CSO accountability mechanisms ... CSOs take seriously their obligation to be fully accountable as development actors to all their key stakeholders in many different country contexts. Therefore, CSOs stress the fundamental importance of voluntary accountability mechanisms, not government or CSO-imposed “policing regulations”. Given the diversity of CSOs worldwide, it is only practical to have voluntary mechanisms, which provide a framework to improve CSO practice, with a requisite flexibility to safeguard CSO autonomy and independence. Credible voluntary mechanisms, by their nature, need to evolve and be strengthened over time and in response to changing circumstances. But an essential element is CSOs’ commitment to the highest practical standards for mechanisms that demonstrate compliance and innovative ways to assure credible compliance with multiple stakeholders. Good practice in accountability mechanisms, guidance on improving CSO development practice, and CSO dialogue at the country level through the Open Forum suggest some ways forward. The Open Forum recommends some basic approaches to advance CSO efforts to strengthen accountability mechanisms: 1. The Istanbul Principles and the guidance in this Framework are the foundation for accountability standards, but accountability mechanisms must also address broader questions of organizational governance. 2. Voluntary mechanisms must be clear about who is accountable, to whom and for what. 3. Voluntary self-regulatory accountability mechanisms and their context-specific requirements are best developed with those whose work will be measured. Primary stakeholders, where feasible, should be consulted. Accountability mechanisms should promote organizational learning and measures to address challenges. 4. Codes of conduct and accountability mechanisms should be accessible to, and meaningful for, primary stakeholders. To be fully accountable to primary stakeholders, communications must be clear, accessible, relevant and respectful of local context.

5. Flexibility and adaptability are essential for mechanisms to be realistically applied in diverse and often-unpredictable conditions. 6. Mechanisms must model good practice and not impose principles and results measurements on others that the CSO does not accept for itself. 7. Existing mechanisms and lessons learned should be utilized to strengthen accountability at country levels, particularly through associations of CSOs. In strengthening accountability mechanisms it is important to demonstrate credible compliance, avoid overlap, duplication, and high transaction costs.

SECTION IV: CRITICAL CONDITIONS FOR ENABLING CSO DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS: GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES Preamble While CSOs are independent and autonomous, they are not development actors working in isolation. Their capacities to live up to principles for development effectiveness are affected by the actions of other development actors. CSOs, as development actors, are profoundly affected by the context in which they work. The policies and practices of developing country governments and official donors affect and shape the capacities of CSOs to engage in development. Progress in realizing the Istanbul Principles in CSO practice, therefore, depends in large measure on enabling government policies, laws and regulations consistent with the Istanbul Principles. An “enabling environment” and “enabling standards” The “enabling environment” is the political and policy context created by governments, official donors and other development actors that affect the ways CSOs may carry out their work. “Enabling standards” are a set of interrelated good practices by donors and governments – in the legal, regulatory, fiscal, informational, political, and cultural areas – that support the capacity of CSO development actors to engage in development processes in a sustained and effective manner.

At the 2008 Accra High Level Forum, all donors and governments committed “to work with CSOs to provide an enabling environment that maximizes their contributions to development”. But since then, many CSOs, North and South, have experienced deteriorating enabling conditions for their work. CSOs call on all governments, including official donors, to review with CSOs at country, regional and global levels, current policies, regulations and practices affecting CSOs as development actors. Respect for CSOs as development actors requires an enabling environment that guarantees the full participation of CSOs in all stages of the development process, including the planning and formulation of development plans and strategies.

Give priority to implementing an enabling environment for CSO development effectiveness ... The enabling environment for development is complex. All development actors are affected by persistent and multiple global and local economic, social and climatic crises as well as conflict situations. Political conditions also matter. Space for CSO-initiated development activities has narrowed, to varying degrees, in both developing and donor countries. For decades, CSOs have been forging partnerships in order to maximize their impact. CSOs require environments in which they are free to choose their partners based on mutually-agreed priorities. The private sector is also an important actor affecting development. It is essential to strengthen markets and provide decent work for people living in poverty, including informal sector workers. CSOs, as development actors, are affected by the practices of private for-profit actors, particularly where their activities undermine the promotion of sustainable livelihoods. Enabling conditions for CSO effectiveness require an explicit commitment on the part of private sector actors to work alongside other development actors through social dialogue and actions that lead to the realization of internationally-agreed development goals and poverty reduction. Conventions and norms for human rights, gender equality, environmental sustainability and decent work must be respected. The International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness establishes principles and relevant guidance for CSOs to assess and work to improve their practices. CSOs have met with governments and official donors to discuss, based on the Istanbul Principles, policies that might enable CSO development activities to reach their full potential. Governments and multilateral organizations committed to do so in the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA). The Open Forum, therefore, welcomes and encourages further work by the multi-stakeholder Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment and its Key Findings for the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (April 2011) as a positive contribution on which to build and strengthen enabling conditions for CSOs.

The Istanbul Principles for CSO Development Effectiveness deepen the application of the Paris Principles on aid effectiveness ... The 2008 Accra Agenda for Action invited CSOs “to reflect on how they can apply the Paris principles of aid effectiveness from a CSO perspective” [AAA, § 20]. The Istanbul Principles for CSO Development Effectiveness deepens multi-stakeholder understanding and commitment to the Paris Principles. The Istanbul Principles reflect, for CSOs, the centrality of broad-based, inclusive and democratic ownership of development, which the AAA acknowledges as crucial to meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Paris Declaration commitments. The elaboration of the Istanbul Principles and the work of the Open Forum to seek out multistakeholder dialogue signals a CSO resolve to expand and give priority to coordinated efforts on the part of all stakeholders in a “shared commitment to overcome poverty” [AAA, § 20, § 32]. But, in the absence of some basic minimum enabling standards on the part of donors and governments, CSOs will be thwarted in their implementation of the Istanbul Principles. All governments, as signatories to the Paris Declaration and the AAA, should work in partnership with all development actors,

including CSOs, to create enabling environments that extend their commitments from aid to development effectiveness.

An enabling environment for CSO development effectiveness 1. All governments must fulfill obligations to fundamental human rights that enable people to organize and participate in development. In almost all countries, CSOs, their staff and volunteers are experiencing political, financial and institutional vulnerability, arising from the changing policies and restrictive practices of their governments. CSOs are concerned about the impact of these restrictive policies on democratic and legal space for CSOs. This CSO vulnerability is exemplified in the use of pervasive anti-terrorism legislation, more restrictive government financial and regulatory regimes and the exercise of government power to limit “political” activity and sometimes repress CSOs and their leaders, who may be human rights defenders or critical of government policies. Some CSO actors, particularly from Africa, are experiencing difficulties in getting timely access to visas for travel related to intercountry CSO exchanges and regional and global coordination. CSOs continue to organize and work with government and other stakeholders to strengthen and contribute to democratic governance and inclusive development activities. Democratic government requires laws, regulations and practices that respect several fundamental principles or standards – pre-conditions for a robust and effective civil society.1 These include:  Freedom of association and assembly;  Legal recognition facilitating the work of CSOs;  The right to freedom of expression;  Freedom of movement, mobility rights and the right to travel;  The right to operate free of unwarranted state interference; and  The legal space to seek and secure necessary resources in support of legitimate roles in development. Public authorities are required by international law to provide protection when the integrity of a civil society organization or lives of its staff and members are threatened. CSOs welcome the 2010 resolution by the UN Human Rights Council on the right to peaceful assembly and association. CSOs urge full cooperation by all governments with the UN Rapporteur designated to monitor these rights.

The organization and presentation of these principles is derived from “International Principles Protecting Civil Society”, in Defending Civil Society, A Report of the World Movement of Democracy, February 2008, accessed at www.wmd.org/projects/defending-civil-society. These rights are guaranteed under the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other multilateral and regional treaties. 1

2. Areas of focus for Partner Governments and Official Donors a) Recognizing CSOs as development actors in their own right The AAA recognition of CSOs as development actors in their own right [§ 20] was a significant advancement in situating the distinct contributions of CSOs to development. CSOs’ roots in society, and notably with people living in poverty and discriminated populations, make CSOs essential actors for development. The diverse roles of CSOs in complementary provision of services, in social organization and in coalescing civic involvement in all aspects of the development process must be enhanced not curtailed. All governments must affirm and ensure the full participation of CSOs as independent development actors in their own right and differentiate them from other actors, such as the private sector.

b) Structuring democratic political and policy dialogue to improve development effectiveness Governments in both developing and donor countries must provide the conditions for inclusive and meaningful participation of CSOs in political and policy dialogue at all levels of development. CSOs are promoters and generators of development knowledge. In particular, they bring the experiences and voices of men and women, girls and boys living in poverty and the marginalized to policy and priority-setting processes. All actors should work in partnership to strengthen capacities for democratic dialogue to build mutual understanding, trust and common knowledge. CSOs, in the Open Forum processes, have documented significant barriers to inclusive political and policy dialogue – barriers that must be addressed. Building on good practice, CSOs have identified key conditions for reversing these trends: 1. Systematic inclusion of diverse views, particularly those from grassroots-based social organizations, women’s organizations and indigenous peoples’ representatives; 2. Transparency and clarity of purpose and process; 3. Freedom to access information, including country strategies and program plans; 4. Access to documentation in the languages of those being consulted; 5. Timeliness of consultations in order to impact decisions; 6. Recognition of the responsibilities and contributions of other actors, especially parliamentarians and local government; and 7. Appropriate resources to enable full participation of stakeholders. Governments and donors should ensure that local CSOs are fully consulted in the planning, design and delivery of country-specific development programs.

c) Being accountable for transparent and consistent policies for development. Governments must put into practice principles of good governance, which include full transparency and accountability for development priorities, strategies, plans and actions. In their role as “watchdog”, CSOs can ensure public resources are used to maximize impact on poverty and equitable growth. Similarly, official donors should put in place transparent and consistent policies

that define the place and role of CSOs in donor strategic frameworks and plans, including countrylevel program implementation plans.

d) Creating enabling financing for CSO development effectiveness The donor relationship is, by definition, a relationship rooted in access to development finance for CSOs. The practices of CSOs as donors face many similar issues as official donors in establishing equitable partnerships. But CSOs are also affected, and sometimes limited, by official donor funding modalities and policies. CSO development effectiveness will be enabled through funding modalities undertaken by official donors with 1) a long-term results-oriented perspective, which includes core institutional support, based on the notion that CSOs provide public goods, 2) responsiveness to CSO initiatives, 3) access for a diversity of CSOs, including support for different-sized CSOs, 4) predictable, transparent, easily understandable and harmonized terms, 5) the view to promoting the mobilization of local resources; and 6) support for the full range of CSO programming and innovation, including policy development and advocacy. A vibrant civil society, which advocates for marginalized populations, is a public good. Governments should acknowledge this important role by providing fiscal support through taxation and other mechanisms in order to ensure the continuing operation and sustainability of civil society actors.

Making progress in standards that shape the CSO enabling environment ... The inclusive multi-stakeholder character of the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness has provided a unique opportunity in which to document evidence and pursue dialogue on CSO enabling conditions. The Open Forum welcomes the work of the multi-stakeholder Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment and its March 2011 agreement on Key Messages for the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness as a positive and substantial contribution to strengthening enabling standards for CSOs. The multi-stakeholder Task Team has advanced important standards in five key areas: 1) recognizing CSOs as independent development actors in their own right, 2) creating enabling environments for CSOs based on human rights standards, 3) deepening donorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; CSO support models, 4) strengthening CSO development effectiveness, and 5) assuring accountability and transparency â&#x20AC;&#x201C; with shared recommendations, which are consistent with CSOsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; commitment to advance the Istanbul Principles (see Annex Three for selected key messages from the Task Team). The full implementation of the five principles of the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action already provide obligations for government signatories to create an effective enabling environment for CSOs. The CSO Open Forum on CSO Development Effectiveness calls on all signatories to the Paris Declaration to fully adhere to those obligations. This Framework can be the basis for ongoing multi-stakeholder dialogue at the country, regional and global levels, resulting in laws, regulations, policies and practices that fully enable CSOs as development actors.

SECTION V: WAYS FORWARD The Open Forum has undertaken an extra-ordinary global CSO journey of self-reflection about the identity, roles, and principles for CSOs as effective development actors. The result is a global CSO agreement, the International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness, adopted fully by 240 CSO representatives from 70 countries in Siem Reap, Cambodia. Along with accompanying “Implementation Toolkit”, the Framework provides the needed tools for CSOs, wherever they work, to be responsive to their constituencies and society at large and to create a more equitable and better world. All actors for development – CSOs, government and donors – are inter-dependent and must collaborate to effectively realize development outcomes for people living in poverty and marginalized populations. They have a shared interest in a dynamic CSO sector. For their part, CSOs are coming to the 4th High Level Forum in Busan, Korea, (HLF-4) with a firm commitment to strengthen and improve the sector as an actor in development, guided by the Istanbul Principles. CSOs call on all governments involved in HLF-4 to acknowledge the Open Forum process and endorse the Istanbul Principles as an essential basis for policies of engagement and support of civil society in development. CSOs pledge to continue discussions in the months after HLF-4 towards implementation and monitoring of the Istanbul Principles. These discussions will take place at many levels – in countrylevel and sectoral meetings, in CSO organizational discussions of their development practice, in selfassessments and peer reviews, and in dialogue with other development stakeholders, including organizations directly representing people living in poverty. All development actors must make vigorous efforts to strengthen their accountability to internationally agreed development goals, including the MDGs, in line with international human rights standards. There is no exception for CSOs, who acknowledge their responsibility to improve their development practices. As such, CSOs will measure and improve mechanisms for accountability against experience and best practices, while respecting the country-specific application of the Istanbul Principles for Development Effectiveness, as well as CSO independence and autonomy as development actors. CSOs seek and welcome engagement with developing country governments, official donors and multilateral institutions in advancing CSO development effectiveness principles and meeting the challenges in their implementation. The Open Forum welcomes the proposal from the Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness to continue dialogue at the senior level up to and beyond HLF-4, as all stakeholders make collective and individual institutional efforts to address outstanding CSO development effectiveness issues. All development actors must continue to work together to advance human rights, gender equality and social justice through reforms in development cooperation. This International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness, with its principles, norms and guidance, is a significant CSO contribution to these reforms.

ANNEX ONE: Istanbul Principles for CSO Development Effectiveness1 Civil society organizations are a vibrant and essential feature in the democratic life of countries across the globe. CSOs collaborate with the full diversity of people and promote their rights. The essential characteristics of CSOs as distinct development actors – that they are voluntary, diverse, non-partisan, autonomous, non-violent, working and collaborating for change – are the foundation for the Istanbul principles for CSO Development Effectiveness. These principles guide the work and practices of civil society organizations in both peaceful and conflict situations, in different areas of work from grassroots to policy advocacy, and in a continuum from humanitarian emergencies to long-term development. 1. Respect and promote human rights and social justice CSOs are effective as development actors when they … develop and implement strategies, activities and practices that promote individual and collective human rights, including the right to development, with dignity, decent work, social justice and equity for all people. 2. Embody gender equality and equity while promoting women and girl’s rights CSOs are effective as development actors when they … promote and practice development cooperation embodying gender equity, reflecting women’s concerns and experience, while supporting women’s efforts to realize their individual and collective rights, participating as fully empowered actors in the development process. 3. Focus on people’s empowerment, democratic ownership and participation CSOs are effective as development actors when they … support the empowerment and inclusive participation of people to expand their democratic ownership over policies and development initiatives that affect their lives, with an emphasis on the poor and marginalized. 4. Promote Environmental Sustainability CSOs are effective as development actors when they … develop and implement priorities and approaches that promote environmental sustainability for present and future generations, including urgent responses to climate crises, with specific attention to the socio-economic, cultural and indigenous conditions for ecological integrity and justice.

Please note, the Istanbul Principles, as agreed at the Open Forum’s Global Assembly in Istanbul, September 28 -30, 2010, are the foundation of the Open Forum’s Draft International Framework on CSO Development Effectiveness. These principles are further elaborated in Version 2 of this Framework, which can be found on the Open Forum’s web site, www.cso-effectiveness.org.

5. Practice transparency and accountability CSOs are effective as development actors when they … demonstrate a sustained organizational commitment to transparency, multiple accountability, and integrity in their internal operations. 6. Pursue equitable partnerships and solidarity CSOs are effective as development actors when they … commit to transparent relationships with CSOs and other development actors, freely and as equals, based on shared development goals and values, mutual respect, trust, organizational autonomy, long-term accompaniment, solidarity and global citizenship. 7. Create and share knowledge and commit to mutual learning CSOs are effective as development actors when they … enhance the ways they learn from their experience, from other CSOs and development actors, integrating evidence from development practice and results, including the knowledge and wisdom of local and indigenous communities, strengthening innovation and their vision for the future they would like to see. 8. Commit to realizing positive sustainable change CSOs are effective as development actors when they … collaborate to realize sustainable outcomes and impacts of their development actions, focusing on results and conditions for lasting change for people, with special emphasis on poor and marginalized populations, ensuring an enduring legacy for present and future generations. Guided by these Istanbul Principles, CSOs are committed to take pro-active actions to improve and be fully accountable for their development practices. Equally important will be enabling policies and practices by all actors. Through actions consistent with these principles, donor and partner country governments demonstrate their Accra Agenda for Action pledge that they “share an interest in ensuring that CSO contributions to development reach their full potential”. All governments have an obligation to uphold basic human rights – among others, the right to association, the right to assembly, and the freedom of expression. Together these are pre-conditions for effective development. Istanbul, Turkey September 29, 2010

ANNEX TWO: CSO Roles in Development People come together to create CSOs as not-for-profit voluntary expressions of peoples’ right to development through voluntary association. They are channels for social solidarity, service and mobilization to enable people to better claim all their rights to improve conditions of life and to build a democratic society. Through CSOs, people actively express their ‘citizenship’ in relation to the accountability of state and government obligations to respect, protect and fulfill human rights. Alone and in collaboration with CSOs and other actors, CSOs act in development to … a)

Direct engagement and support for communities, poor and marginalized groups in selfhelp and local development innovation.

Delivery of basic services and essential infrastructures at local level, particularly in social services such as health protection and care, education, water and sanitation, while empowering communities to seek fulfillment of their right to these services from government.

Empower marginalized grassroots communities and people living in poverty, particularly women, to claim their rights, through inclusive capacity strengthening and promoting social mobilization and peoples’ voices in democratizing local and national development and participation in public policy.

Engage communities, civil society, the private sector, local government authorities and other development actors to collaborate and seek synergies based on mutually agreed development priorities and approaches.

Enrich the public policy agenda with CSO knowledge, issues, perspectives and proposals which respect and are informed by spiritual virtues embedded in cultural values, including indigenous peoples’ rights and their notions of “vivir bien” (“living well”).

Monitor government and donor policies and development practices, through policy research and development, policy dialogue and facilitating democratic accountability for excluded and marginalized populations, based on local knowledge.

Educate and help shape social values of democracy, solidarity and social justice through production of knowledge, sharing information and encouraging peoples’ action for global citizenship.

Encourage domestic and international volunteering engagement, whether in the creation and support of CSOs and/or contributing in the ongoing organizational life and mission of CSOs.

Find and leverage sources of financing and human resources for development, including sustaining domestic and local sources of finance in developing countries, directly as CSO recipients or as donor channels at local, national and international level.

Connect and network CSOs within and between civil societies in ways that encourages accountability to people for positive impacts on the rights and lives of target populations.

ANNEX THREE: Selected Key Messages, Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment Among its seventeen messages, the Task Team calls on all development stakeholders to 1) Reaffirm CSOs as independent development actors in their own right and the importance of multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. 2) Commit to and promote an enabling environment for CSOs as independent development actors, both in law and in practice, at minimum in keeping with existing commitments in international and regional instruments that guarantee fundamental rights. 3) Assure that the Paris Declaration principles, including ownership and alignment, are not in any way interpreted or applied to narrow the enabling environment for CSOs. 4) Implement donor models of support that can contribute to CSO effectiveness ... through policies and requirements that are appropriate to promote CSO roles as effective, independent development actors in their own right. 5) Acknowledge existing efforts and progress in demonstrating CSOsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; accountability ... [while] CSOs recognize the need for continued progress and commit to actively strengthen the application of self-managed accountability and transparency mechanisms and standards. 6) Encourage context-specific adoption and application of principles of aid and development effectiveness, including the Istanbul Principles for CSO Development Effectiveness, accompanying guidelines and indicators, and CSOsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; own ongoing efforts to implement and monitor these selfregulating standards and tools. 7) Recognize that all development actors have a responsibility to be accountable for their aid and development efforts, and share responsibility to promote each othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; accountability. 8) Encourage efforts by all stakeholders to increase transparency ... in keeping with their respective access to information regulations, the scale of resources and agreement on modalities that do not jeopardize the continued operations, safety and security of CSOs or individuals associated with them.

국 제 프레 임 워 크

CSO 개발효과성을 위한 국제 프레임워크에 관한

씨엠립 CSO 합의

제2차 세계총회에서 합의 CSO 개발효과성을 위한 오픈포럼 2011년 6월 28~29일, 캄보디아 씨엠립

섹션 I : 서 론 시민사회 개발효과성을 강화하기 위한 노력

전세계 수백만 시민사회단체(Civil Society Organizations – 이하 CSO)들은 그동안 변화와 사회변혁의 혁 신적인 주체로서 고유하고 꼭 필요한 방식으로 개발영역에서 공헌을 해왔다. CSO의 이러한 공헌은 오랫동 안 지속되어 왔다. CSO는 풀뿌리 영역에서 나름의 개발 노력을 하고 있는 사람들의 경험을 지지한다. 또한 CSO는 공여자이며 동시에 개발을 시행하는 주체이며, 개발 관련 지식과 혁신을 증진하고 국경을 초월해 전 세계적으로 사람들의 인식과 연대를 높이기 위해 일한다. CSO는 개발에서의 전진보를 위해 정부와 공여자 들과 함께 하는 포용적(inclusive) 정책 대화를 주장하고 이를 위해 노력한다. CSO가 많은 공헌을 하기도 했지만 개발 행위자로서 약점과 도전들도 있음을 인정하며 CSO는 현재 개발 관행을 개선하고 자신들의 책무를 다하기 위해 적극적인 조치를 취할 것을 다짐하였다. CSO 개발효과성을 위한 오픈포럼은 CSO 주도하에 전세계 CSO들이 참여하는 과정으로 효과적인 CSO 개발 관행을 위한 변화 를 정의하고 또 이를 이끌어 갈 비전과 중요한 원칙을 결정해 왔다. 2010년 9월, 82개국 170명의 CSO 대표가 터키 이스탄불에서 만나 CSO 개발효과성을 위한 이스탄불 원

칙(부록 1 참조)을 검토하고 만장일치로 채택하였다. 이스탄불 원칙은 70개 이상의 나라와 분야에서 활동하 는 수천 개의 CSO가 참여하여 충분한 협의를 통해 내놓은 결과이다. 8가지 이스탄불 원칙은 개발 행동에 있어 CSO의 비전과 임무, 접근방식, 관계 및 영향 등을 고려하였다. 다양한 CSO가 지리적으로 다른 지역에서 활동하고 있음을 감안하여 이스탄불 원칙은 각각의 CSO의 상황 과 분야별 특징에 맞게 유의미하고 고유한 방식으로 적용되어야 한다. 이스탄불 원칙은 2011년 6월 캄보디아 씨엠립에서 열린 제2차 세계총회에서 채택된 CSO 개발효과성

을 위한 국제 프레임워크의 토대이다. 프레임워크는 다양한 지역 및 분야에서 이스탄불 원칙을 어떻게 해석 하고 어떻게 CSO 활동과 맞추어 갈 것인지에 대한 지침이 되고 있다. 보다 자세한 지침과 지표에 대한 설명 을 담은 “이스탄불 원칙 실행을 위한 툴킷(toolkit)”은 각기 다른 조직적 임무와 프로그램 현실 상황 속에서 CSO가 프레임워크에 적응하고 이를 이용하여 활동하는 데 도움을 줄 것이다. CSO 개발 행위자는 자신들이 활동하는 상황에 큰 영향을 받는다. CSO가 공여자인 경우를 포함에서 항상 모든 정부의 정책과 관행에 따라 CSO가 개발에 참여할 수 있는 역량이 달라지고 또 결정된다. 따라서 CSO 관행에서 이스탄불 원칙을 실천하는 일에서의 진전은 이스탄불 원칙과 일치하는 정부의 정책, 법, 규정에 크 게 좌우된다. 2008년 아크라에서 열린 제3차 세계개발원조총회에서 각국 정부는 시민사회가 개발활동을 최대한 효과

프레임워크 1

적으로 할 수 있는 우호적인 환경(enabling environment)을 제공하기 위해 CSO와 함께 노력하겠다고 약속 했다. 그러나 그 이후 공여국과 개발도상국 모두에서 CSO는 자신들의 활동 조건이 악화되는 것을 경험하였 다. 따라서 오픈포럼에서는 CSO 개발효과성과 이를 가능하게 하는 환경에 관한 다자간 테스크팀의 활동과 테스크팀이 제4차 세계개발원조총회를 위해 내놓은 주요 연구결과를 환영하고 지지하는 바이며, 이는 CSO 가 개발을 효과적으로 할 수 있게 하는 우호적인 환경을 만들고 또 강화시키는 데 긍정적인 기여를 할 것이 라 생각한다. 본 CSO 개발효과성을 위한 국제 프레임워크는 제4차 부산 세계개발원조총회(HLF-4)의 목표를 달성하기 위해 CSO가 BetterAid Platform을 통해 다른 개발 행위자와 함께 참여 및 협력하는 토대가 된다. 본 프레임워크는 사람들이 스스로 개발을 이루고 자신들의 권리를 주장할 수 있도록 돕는 데 있어서 CSO, 개도국 정부, 공여자 및 다른 원조 주체들 사이에 새로운 협력과 시너지 효과 기회를 제공한다. CSO는 HLF-4와 관련된 모든 정부가 오픈포럼 과정의 결과를 인정하고 이스탄불 원칙을 개발과 관련하여 정책참 여와 시민사회 지지에 꼭 필요한 기초사항으로 승인할 것을 촉구한다.

개발효과성을 이해하기 위한 개발의 의미

CSO 개발효과성은 곧 개발을 위한 CSO 활동의 영향력에 관한 것이다. 개발활동이 빈곤, 불평등, 소외와 같은 문제의 현상뿐 아니라 원인을 개선할 수 있는 지속가능한 변화를 가져다줄 때, 개발활동은 효과적이라 고 할 것이다. CSO에게 있어서 개발효과성은 가난하고 취약하고 소외된 계층을 직접적으로 참여시키고, 이 들이 권리를 행사할 수 있도록 힘을 실어주는 다각도의 인적^사회적 개발과정과 맞닿아 있다. CSO는 한 가지 정해진 개발 모델이 있다고 생각하지 않는

시민사회단체(CSO: Organization)란?

Civil Society

CSO는 공적 영역에서 공통의 공익을 위해 시민들에 의해 조직된 모든 비시장^비정부 기관이라고 정의할 수 있다. 회원을 바탕으 로 한 CSO, 대의를 위한 CSO, 서비스 중심 의 CSO 등 다양한 종류의 단체들이 있다. 지 역사회 중심의 단체와 마을협회, 환경단체, 여성단체, 농민협회, 종교단체, 노조, 협동조 합, 전문가협회, 상공회의소, 독립연구소, 비 영리 언론단체 등이 CSO의 예가 될 수 있다.

다. 그보다는 오히려 사람들과 그들의 조직에 초점을 맞추어 어떤 방식으로 개발할 것인가에 대한 선택을 스스로 할 수 있 도록 힘을 실어주는 데 중점을 두고 있다. CSO는 개발효과성 을 위해 많은 개발 대안에 대해 열려 있어야 하는데, 그러한 대 안들은 인권, 환경적 지속가능성(지구의 한계) 및 원주민들이 가진 잘 사는 삶(vivir bien – living well)에 대한 개념을 점점 더 중요하게 받아들이고 있다. 빈곤층과 소외계층은 개발자원에 대한 동등한 접근성을 갖 고 있지 못하다. 이러한 불평등이 계속되는 이유는 개발역량

(2008년 8월 Advisory Group Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations)

이나 재정의 한계 때문이기도 하지만 사회^경제적 및 정치적 권력이 집중되어 있거나 성평등이 이루어지지 않아서 혹은 소

수자의 인권이 보장되지 않았기 때문이기도 하다. 그렇기 때문에 효과적인 CSO 개발활동을 위해서는 CSO

2 프레임워크

가 특정한 선택을 하고 약자의 편에 서야만 한다. 또한 빈곤층이 비참한 희생자가 아닌 동등한 권리를 가진 개발 행위자이자 개발을 지지하는 정치적 주체로 설 수 있도록 직접 참여를 유도해야 한다. CSO의 개발 비전은 원조 주체로서가 아닌 개발 행위자로 활동하는 많은 CSO(부록 2 참조 : 개발에서 CSO 역 할 요약)를 포함하여 개발 행위자로서 CSO가 하고 있는 다양한 역할을 통해 알 수 있다. CSO들은 이제 외적으

로 판단되는 욕구나 결핍을 채워 주는 시혜적 자선보다는 점점 더 인권을 지지하는 방향으로 활동을 하고 있다.

섹션 II : CSO 개발효과성 원칙 들어가며 CSO는 전세계 국가의 민주주의에 있어 역동적이고 꼭 필요한 역할을 하고 있다. 자치적이고 자발적인 단 체로서 CSO는 책임성 있고 효과적인 단체가 되고자 노력하고 있다. 또한 CSO는 빈곤층과 소외계층을 위한 개발을 위해 노력하면서 고유하고 독립적인 개발 행위자로 널리 인정을 받아왔다. CSO는 공통의 관심과 가 치를 추구하는 기타 기관들과 협력하며 사회변화를 이끄는 촉매 역할을 해왔다. CSO는 개발 관행에 있어서 다양하고 혁신적인 사회적 발현이다. CSO는 다양한 조직의 가치와 목표, 대 중을 참여시키는 수단뿐만 아니라 분야별 지식, 구조, 이해관계 및 자원까지 끌어온다. 사회적^정치적 과정인 개발에서 결과만큼이나 중요한 것이 바로 사람들이 참여하고 자신들의 권리를 주 장할 수 있도록 하는 과정이다. 결론적으로 CSO는 개발 영역에서 변화를 주도하는 정치적 주역이자 공익을 대변하고 제공하는 주체이다. 또 CSO는 다양한 단계의 개도국 정부 및 공여자들의 개발 노력을 보완하면서 지역사회, 그리고 정부 및 기타 공여기관 등 다른 개발 행위자들과 함께 협력하고 있다. CSO는 각 지역에서 긴밀하고 종종 특별한 연대를 맺고 활동할 뿐만 아니라 국가 혹은 전세계적 차원의 변화를 추구하기도 한다. 하지만 정식으로 국가의 정치권력을 얻어 개발에 영향력을 행사하고자 하는 정당, 대중조직(peoples’ organizations), 사회운동세력과는 달리 CSO는 사회영역에서 자율적이고 초당파적인 주 체로 CSO만의 시각을 제시한다. 하지만 필리핀과 같은 일부 국가에서는 CSO가 의회 시스템 내에서 직접적 인 역할을 할 수도 있다. CSO는 개발활동을 함에 있어서 비폭력의 원칙을 세우고 있다는 점에서도 구분이 된다. CSO는 개발활동 으로 인해 발생할 수 있는 모든 영향을 고려하면서 ‘해 안 끼치기(Do no harm)’의 원칙을 준수하여 긍정적 인 결과를 극대화하고자 한다. CSO는 사회적 연대를 위한 채널이자 삶의 조건을 개선하고 사람들이 자신의 권리를 더 잘 주장할 수 있도록 필요한 서비스를 제공하고 사람들을 결집시키는 채널이며, 지식과 혁신으로 공공정책 대화를 풍요롭게 하고 개발을 위한 재정적^인적 자원을 찾아서 이용하는 공여자이기도 하다.

프레임워크 3

CSO는 개발활동 결과가 국제인권기준에 부합할 수 있게 정부들과 협력하기도 하고 정부 간 개발활동을 조정하기도 한다. 이와 같은 기준은 차별, 권리의 박탈, 빈곤과 불평등이 만연한 상황을 해결하는 데 우선순 위를 두고 있다. 많은 국가에서 CSO는 시민들을 참여시키고 법치를 수호하며 공적 자금의 부패를 막는 중요 한 역할을 한다. 시민행동의 자발적 표현으로 CSO는 민주적이고 포용적인 개발의 척도가 된다. 자발성, 다양성, 초당파성, 비폭력성, 변화를 위한 협력, 개발과정과 결과의 연계 등이 CSO의 모든 오픈포 럼에서 언급된 고유하고 독립적이며 자율적인 개발 행위자로서 CSO의 특징이다. 본 프레임워크에서 담고 있는 이스탄불 원칙은 전혀 새로운 것이 아니다. 이는 오픈포럼 과정과 논의에 참여한 수천 개의 CSO가 수 십 년간 경험한 것에 대해 합의하여 표현해 놓은 것이다. 이와 같이 이스탄불 원칙은 평시나 분쟁상황에서, 그리고 풀뿌리 운동에서부터 정책 운동까지 다양한 영역에서, 그리고 인도적 긴급구호에서부터 장기적 개 발까지 연속성을 가지고 일하고 있는 CSO의 활동과 관행을 담고 있다. 이스탄불 원칙이 CSO의 관행을 보여 주는 필수적인 CSO의 가치에 대한 합의를 담고 있기는 하지만 개발 활동에 참여하고 있는 수천 개의 CSO가 직면하고 있는 모든 문제나 목적, 지리적 요소 및 단체 수 등 다양한 요소를 완전히 담을 수는 없다. 이스탄불 원칙은 CSO가 활동하는 국가 및 조직 상황에 따라 지역별로 해석 되고 적용되어야 한다. 마찬가지로 이스탄불 원칙은 기존의 CSO 국가별 또는 분야별 원칙, 혹은 다양한 책임성 프레임워크를 되 풀이하거나 대체하려는 의도가 없다. 그보다는 오히려 이스탄불 원칙을 도입한다는 것은 CSO 개발효과성 개선에 대한 구조화된 의견과 심도있는 이해 및 책임성을 갖는다는 것을 의미한다. 이러한 이유로 본 프레임 워크에서는 각 원칙에 대해 지침을 제시해 놓았고, 더 자세한 사항은 본 프레임워크와 함께 나온 “이스탄불 원칙 실행을 위한 툴킷”에 나와 있다.

이스탄불 원칙 : CSO 개발 관행의 지침 1. 인권과 사회정의 존중 및 증진 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서 발전권을 포함하는 개인과 집단의 인권 – 존엄, 양질의 일자리, 사회정의 및 모 든 사람의 평등을 갖춘 – 을 증진하는 전략, 활동, 실천관행을 개발하고 실행할 때 효과적이 된다. 개발 활동에 대한 권리에 기반한 접근은 많은 CSO들에 의해 채택되고 실행돼 왔다. CSO들은 전체론 적 접근법을 사용함으로써 사람들이 그들의 목소리를 찾고 자신의 권리를 보호하도록 개개인의 역량을 강화하고 있는데, 여기에는 모든 사람들의 권리를 존중, 보호 및 충족함에 있어 정부가 책무를 다하도록 하는 것이 포함된다. 이러한 접근들은 불평등, 취약성, 배제, 특정한 편견에 근거한 차별과 같은 빈곤의 구조화된 원인들을 다룬다. CSO들은 UN의 인권 시스템에 근원을 둔 중요한 시민적 및 정치적 권리들, 경제적^사회적 및 문화적 권리들, 그리고 국제 인권 기준들을 참조하는데, 여기에는 발전권 선언, 아동 권리 선언, 국제노동기구(ILO)의 핵심 협약들, 모든 형태의 여성차별철폐협약(CEDAW), 그리고 지역 차

4 프레임워크

원에 존재하는 인권 협의들이 포함된다.

지침 a) 참여, 교육 및 역량강화 그리고 정부에 책임을 묻기 위한 포용적 정책대화 등의 메커니즘과 함께 애 드보커시, 프로그램 분석, 설계, 시행 평가의 모든 면에서 인권에 기반한 접근을 실행 b) 국가 주도의 CSO 개발 활동을 설계, 시행 그리고 평가함에 있어서 해당 시민의 권리를 보호, 지지 및 활용 가능하게 하고 종종 이 과정에 참여하지 못하고 소외되는 여성의 권리신장을 위해 노력 c) 국제인권법과 기준을 바탕으로 정부, 공여자 및 다른 개발 행위자와 포용적 정책결정과정을 추구하 고 권장하면서 해당 지역사회가 다자간 정책대화에 참여할 수 있도록 역량 강화 및 개선 d) 해당 지역사회와 이해관계자 입장에서 자유의지로 사전에 모든 정보를 듣고 동의할 수 있도록 하는 진정성 있는 접근방식 시행. 취약계층에게 자신들의 법적 권리와 자원 수단에 대한 교육 및 능력 배양 e) 성평등, 아동권, 장애, 적당한 일자리 그리고 지속가능한 생계 등 국제인권기준과 관련하여 개발효 과성을 위한 측정가능한 지표 개발

2. 여성과 여아의 권리 증진 및 성평등과 성형평성 구현 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서 여성의 관심사와 경험을 반영시키면서 성평등을 구현하며, 여성들이 개발과정 에서 온전히 역량이 강화된 주체로서 참여하면서 그들의 개인적^집단적 권리를 실현하고자 하는 노력을 지 원하는 가운데 개발 협력을 증진하고 실천할 때에 효과적이 된다. 불평등한 권력관계를 해결하고 여성과 여아들의 권리를 실현시킴으로써 – 모든 측면에서 – 성평등을 달성하는 것은 지속가능한 개발 결과들을 이룩하는 데 있어 필수적이다. 여성과 여아들의 취약성과 소 외는 경제적 차별, 유해한 전통 관습, 성적 착취와 성에 기반한 폭력을 포함하는 차별의 다양한 형태들 을 통해 영구화된다. 성평등을 통한 여성의 임파워먼트는 여성과 여아들에게 기회, 자원 그리고 모든 수 준에서의 의사결정에 대한 접근성을 증진시킨다. 여성들이 하나의 동질적 그룹에 속하는 것은 아니므 로 CSO들은 여성들, 특히 소외되고 혜택받지 못한 그룹에 속한 여성들의 역량 강화, 안전 및 웰빙을 증 진하기 위해 다양한 접근 방법들의 필요성을 강조한다. CSO들은 또한 남성과 소년들이 중요한 파트너 이며 그들의 온전한 참여가 필요하다는 사실을 인정한다. CSO들도 성불평등과 관행으로부터 자유롭지 않다. 성형평성을 증진하는 것은 여성들을 위한 현실적 인 조건들을 개선하는 것에 국한되지 않는다. 차별적 법, 정책, 관행들과 씨름하면서 남자와 여성들 사 이의 권력 불평등을 시정하는 것 또한 매우 중요하다. 여성의 참여 그 자체만으로는 그들의 권리와 필요 가 제기되고 옹호되는 것, 그리고 CSO들의 문화가 그 핵심으로부터 성평등을 수용하게 하는 것을 보장 하기에 충분치 않다. 많은 경우, 여성들의 생식 권리를 포함하여 여아와 젊은 여성들의 권리와 기회들이 CSO들에 의해 분명하게 포함되는 것이 성평등과 여성들의 역량 강화를 실현하는 데 핵심적이다. 여성 단체 및 운동들은 개발에서 핵심적인 주체이며 특히 여성들의 역량 강화와 민주화를 위한 세력으로서 중요한 역할을 수행해 왔다.

프레임워크 5

지침 a) CSO를 구성하는 실천 속에 성평등과 여성의 권리를 포함 및 시행. 관련 국제조약과 협정, 특히 UN 여성차별철폐협약(CEDAW)을 고려하는 조직문화가 형성되어야 한다. 성평등과 여성의 권리가 CSO의 임무, 정책, 관련 기관(counterpart)과의 논의 및 인적^재정적 자원 할당에 반영되어야 하며, 직원 및 관련 기관을 위한 역량 강화 프로그램에도 포함되어야 한다. b) 세분화된 데이터를 포함한 성 관련 지표 및 분석을 프로그램 계획에 포함. 종합적인 성 관련 분석 및 성평등과 여성과 여아의 권리 지표를 바탕으로 CSO 프로그램 계획, 시행, 애드보커시, 감시 및 평가 활동이 이루어져야 한다. c) 여성단체나 여성운동 지원을 포함하여 성평등과 여성의 권리에 대한 역량을 강화할 수 있는 파트너 십에 투자. 이 과정에서 남성 및 남아의 참여와 노력을 장려하는 것이 필요하다. d) 다자간 정책대화에서 협력기회 모색. 여성의 성적 및 생식 권리, 경제적 임파워먼트, 리더십, 생산자 원에 대한 더 큰 통제권, 자신들의 전략적 이익을 증진하기 위한 정치적 참여 향상을 위해서 상황에 맞는 변화를 촉진할 목적으로 다자간 정책대화에서 협력기회를 모색한다.

3. 사람들의 임파워먼트, 민주적 주인의식 및 참여에 대한 초점 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서 사람들이 자신들의 삶에 영향을 미치는 정책과 개발 이니셔티브에 대해서 민주 적 주인의식을 확대할 수 있도록 가난하고 소외된 사람들에 대한 강조와 함께 사람들의 임파워먼트와 포용적 참여를 지원할 때에 효과적이 된다. 개발은 그로 인해 영향을 받는 사람들의 권리, 표출된 우선순위, 그리고 현지 지식(local knowledge) 에 근거를 두고 있을 때에 적절하고 효과적일 수 있다. 영향을 받는 사람들은 개발에 있어 주된 이해관 계자들이다. 인권과 긍정적 변화를 증진하기 위해 노력하면서 CSO들은 지역 지역사회의 전통과 문화 에 대해 존중심을 가져야만 한다. CSO의 임파워먼트 활동은 지역사회와 국가 두 가지 차원 모두에서의 행위자로서, 그리고 자신들의 권리를 주장하는 개인들로서 여성과 남성들의 집단적 역량과 그들의 민주 적 주인의식을 강화한다. 그러므로 개발로 인해 영향을 받는 사람들은 폭력 없이 그들의 삶을 형성하는 요인들을 통제할 수 있게 해 주는 더 많은 영향력, 의사결정권 그리고 자원을 얻게 된다. 정책과 개발에 대한 민주적 주인의식은 특히 분쟁 중의, 그리고 분쟁 후의 상황에서 중요하다. CSO들이 개발 이니셔티 브 내에서 정부들과 협력할 때, CSO들은 여성과 남성들이 자신들의 권리를 주장하고 행사할 수 있게끔 하는 기회와 성과를 모색하면서 사회운동 및 관련 단체들을 위한 자율성과 정치적 공간을 보호하고자 한다.

지침 a) 개발활동으로 인해 삶에 직접적으로 영향을 받는 사람들의 권리신장에 CSO 프로그램 집중. 빈곤층, 소외계층 사람들 및 이들을 대면하는 사회운동 측의 의견과 제안, 개발 관련 문제 및 활동에 우선순 위를 두어야 한다(특히, 여성과 여아, 원주민, 노동자, 장애인, 이주민 및 난민들에 대한 특별한 관심 필요). b) 민주적인 지역 의사결정에 있어 아래로부터의 참여적 접근방식 추구 및 지역 CSO 이해관계자의 다 양한 의견과 함께 참여 증진. 전국적 혹은 지역적 CSO 프로그램의 우선순위를 정함에 있어 여성의

6 프레임워크

의견을 반영할 수 있도록 해야 한다. c) 개발 관련 공공정책을 결정하고 지지하고 감시하는 데 있어서 빈곤층과 정치적 소외계층의 의견반영 확대. 다자간 대화를 통해서, 그리고 초당파적 개발 행위자인 CSO 강화를 통해 해당 계층의 의견이 더 많이 반영될 수 있도록 한다. d) 개발에 참여하는 모든 주체에 대한 동등한 대우. 법적 지위나 인종 혹은 성별, 성취향, 장애 유무, 교 육 및 경제적 배경 및 나이에 상관없이 동등한 대우를 보장한다. e) 공여국의 대중들이 복잡한 개발 현실에 대해 알 수 있도록 인식 제고. 개발은 개도국 국민의 연대와 동참을 통해 이루어지는 것이지 대신 변화를 지시하는 것이 아니다. f) 공여자의 경우 CSO가 프로그램 관리와 타 주체와 함께 애드보커시를 함에 있어서 거버넌스, 재정, 리 더십 영역에서 독립적 활동을 할 수 있도록 CSO 역량 강화와 지속가능한 자기개발에 투자. 여성과 소외된 지역사회도 리더 역할을 해야 한다.

4. 환경의 지속가능성 증진 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서 생태적 온전성과 환경정의를 위한 사회경제적^문화적 및 토착적인 조건들에 대해 특별한 관심을 가지면서 기후 위기에 대한 긴급 대응을 포함하는, 현재와 미래 세대를 위한 환경적 지 속가능성을 증진하는 우선순위와 접근법을 개발하고 실행할 때 효과적이 된다. 현재와 미래 세대 모두의 인권은, 지구의 한계 내에서의 지속가능성이 모든 개발 활동의 초석이 되는 개발 행로와 전략들에 달려 있다. 모든 사람들은 건강하고 지속가능한 환경에서 살고 일할 권리를 가지 고 있다. 기후변화를 완화하고 이에 적응해 나가야 할 긴급성을 포함하는 복합적인 환경적 도전들은 지 속가능한 생태계와 인간 개발(human development)을 증진하면서 동시에 영향을 받는 모든 사람들을 포괄하는 역량과 기술을 필요로 한다. 이러한 도전들에 직면하는 것은 환경에 대한 인식과 혁신적인 해 결책을 요구할 것이다. 이러한 해결책들은 정책 일관성은 물론, 환경 및 기후 정의와 성형평성의 원칙들 에 의해 틀 잡혀야 할 것이다. 환경 파괴로 인해 큰 영향을 받는, 특히 개발도상국에 사는 수백만 명의 여 성과 남성들은 환경 및 기후적 위기의 심화라는 결과를 낳고 있는 조건들에 대해서 책임이 없다. CSO 들은 그들의 개발 관행 속에서 웰빙, 생물의 다양성, 그리고 지속가능성을 강화함에 있어서 현지의 사회 경제적 조건들과 문화적 및 토착적인 접근방법들에 명백한 우선순위를 두어야만 한다.

지침 a) CSO 정책, 관행, 프로그램 계획, 설계 과정, 애드보커시 및 대중 참여에 있어서 환경적 지속가능성을 명확히 포함. 장기적 환경, 생태적 온전성을 보장하고 지역 이해관계자의 의견을 듣고 지지하며 환 경관리에서 남녀의 역할이 다름을 인정한다. b) 환경 및 개발 활동을 하고 있는 CSO들 간의 전략 조정 및 협력. 환경친화적이며 지속가능한 개발을 증진하고 실행하기 위해 두 영역의 능력을 강화한다. c) 모든 사람이 건강한 환경에서 생활하고 일할 수 있는 권리를 증진 및 존중하고 지역사회 고유의 환경 친화적인 관행을 지지. 국가개발 전략과 행동 그리고 개인의 환경에 대한 책임도 고려되어야 한다. d) 물, 토지, 식량, 주거지에 대한 권리와 빈곤, 소외계층(예 : 원주민, 농어촌 여성)의 천연자원 관리에 대

프레임워크 7

한 권한 확대 추구. 환경적 거버넌스와 천연자원 관리에 대한 의사결정에 이들이 활발하게 참여할 수 있도록 해야 한다. 다자간 논의를 통해 정부와 민간영역에게 책임을 물을 수 있어야 한다. e) 기후변화의 부정적 영향, 생물다양성 손실 및 모든 형태의 환경 악화 및 오염(예 : 수자원 및 토양)을 줄 이기 위해 정책적 영향을 행사하고 상황에 맞는 프로그램 시행. 생태적 온전성과 정의를 위해 지역 주민들의 지식과 경험을 바탕으로 사회경제적^문화적^지역 고유의 조건들이 정책이나 프로그램에 반영되어야 한다.

5. 투명성과 책무성 실천 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서 자신들의 내부 운영에 있어 투명성(transparency), 다양한 측면에서의 책무성 및 청렴성에 대한 조직 차원의 지속적인 헌신을 보여줄 때 효과적이 된다. 투명성, 상호적 및 다양한 측면에서의 책무성, 그리고 내부의 민주적인 관행들은 사회정의와 평등이 라는 CSO의 가치들을 강화해 준다. 투명성과 책무성은 대중의 신뢰를 형성해 주며 CSO의 신용과 정당 성을 향상시켜 준다. 정치적 행위자들을 포함하여 모든 이해관계자들 사이에 정보를 민주화하고 그 흐 름을 증가시키고 개선하는 것을 통해 시민사회와 민주적 문화 둘 다가 더욱 강화될 수 있다. 투명성은 CSO 책무성의 필수적인 전제조건인 것이다. 책무성은 재정 보고를 하는 것에 국한된 것이 아니라, 조직적인 청렴성 그리고 개발 행위자들 사이의 공개적인 상호 평가(mutual public reckoning) 둘 다를 강화하는 것이어야 하며, 특히 개발로 인해 영향 을 받는 사람들과 관련된 책무성에 초점을 맞춰야 한다. 지역사회에 기반한 CSO들은 종종 현지의 풀뿌 리 책무성 과정을 이행하는 데 있어 특별한 이점을 지닌다. 그러나 CSO들은 때때로 매우 억압적인 정권 과 법 그리고 무력 분쟁과 같은 도전이 되는 상황 속에서 활동하기 때문에 투명성과 책무성을 개선하려 는 노력에 있어 부정적 영향과 제약을 받을 수도 있다.

지침 a) CSO의 가시성과 신뢰성을 높이기 위한 수단으로 공적 책임 있고 투명한 관행 증진 b) 모든 CSO의 조직 정책과 문서를 대중이 쉽게 이용할 수 있게 함으로써 CSO의 상호 그리고 다수 책 무성의 기초 마련. 재정지원을 받는 협력기관 기준, 감사를 받은 정기 재무 보고 및 프로그램 보고 등을 포함한 문서를 공개한다. 이러한 보고서는 물론 해당 기관의 성격과 지역에 맞춰진 것으로 최 소한의 보편적인 법적^윤리적 기준에 근거한 것이다. 정책과 문서 공개로 협력기관의 운영이나 존 립이 위태로워지는 상황이 있어서는 안된다. c) 상호, 그리고 다수의 CSO 책무성을 유지하는 관행 시행. 힘의 관계를 반영하고, 문제와 비판을 수용 하며, 필요한 자원을 보장하고, 남녀차별이 없고, 평등하고 포괄적이며 정기적인 논의가 가능한 합 의된 프레임워크를 마련함으로써 가능하다. 편파적이고 존중하지 않는 행동을 해결할 수 있는 자원 을 위해 공정한 메커니즘도 마련되어야 한다. d) 공여자의 경우, 모든 협력기관이 이용 가능한 정보 제공. 상호 책무성과 투명성 프레임워크 내에서 자금 출처 등의 정보를 제공해야 한다. 협력기관이나 다른 사람의 삶을 위태롭게 할 수 있는 정보에

8 프레임워크

대해서는 비공개 및 비밀로 지켜져야 한다. 관련 기관이 합당한 이유로 정보 비공개를 요청할 경우 정보 이용에 있어서 제한을 둘 수 있다. e) 시민들이 정보를 요청하는 경우, 적시에 정확하고 이용 가능한 정보를 제공. 정보는 가능하면 시민 들이 알 수 있는 적절한 언어로 제공되어야 한다. f) 책임 있고, 효과적인 리더십, 명확한 책임소재, 투명한 운영절차, 윤리적 정보 관행, 반부패 정책, 성 별 균형의 실질적 존중과 인권기준, 청렴성, 정직성, 진정성 더불어 조직 내 투명하고 민주적인 문화 촉진 및 실천

6. 평등한 파트너십 및 연대 추구 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서 자유롭고 대등하게, 공유된 개발의 목표와 가치들, 상호 존중, 신뢰, 조직의 자 율성, 장기적인 동반관계, 연대, 그리고 글로벌 시민의식에 기반하여 CSO들 및 다른 개발 행위자들과의 투명 한 관계에 확고함을 보일 때에 효과적이 된다. 모든 다양한 형태의 효과적인 CSO 파트너십은 사회적 연대의 표현이라고 할 수 있다. CSO 파트너십 은 상호 합의된 목표 및 공유된 가치들에 기초하여 평등하고 상호적인 협력과 조정을 실현하기 위한 의 도적인 노력을 통해 보다 강해질 수 있다. 상호 배움의 정신에 입각한 파트너십은 CSO들 및 자신들이 속한 지역사회의 미래에 직접적으로 영향을 미치는 영역 내에서 행해지는 그들의 노력을 지원하는 현 지 지역사회들에 경험, 전문성, 그리고 후원을 증진시킨다. CSO들은 또한 초국가적인 사람들 사이의 연 대, 그리고 모든 나라들에서 대중적 인식 및 시민 참여를 위한 연계를 증진시킨다. 개발을 위한 효과적 인 CSO 파트너십은 신뢰, 존중, 연대 및 개발도상국 파트너들의 리더십에 기초하여 공통의 목적과 프로 그램 목표들을 협상해 나가는 장기적인 노력을 필요로 한다. 조직의 자율성은 평등한 파트너십에 필수적이다. 평등한 파트너십은 권력의 불균등에 균형을 맞추기 위한 모든 파트너들의 의도적인 태도와 행동으로부터 얻어진다. 이러한 권력 불균등은 자원에 대한 불 평등한 접근, 구조적 및 역사적 불평등, 성불평등과 여성에 대한 배제, 그리고 역량 면에서 때로 커다란 격차의 결과인 것이다. 외부 CSO들의 역할은 개발도상국의 CSO 주체들의 목소리를 좌우하기보다는 가능케 하고, 대체하기보다는 증폭시키는 것이다. 개발의 성과가 지속적으로 유지되고 널리 공유되기 위해서는 다른 개발 행위자들, 특히 공여자 및 정 부들과의 상호 존중의 협력 그리고 신중한 조율 과정을 거쳐야 한다. 그러나 CSO들은 자체로서 독립된 행위자이지 공여자 또는 정부들의 도구로서의 대리인이 아니다. 상호 존중, 개발의 목표와 전략들이 공 유되는 분명한 영역들에 대한 합의, 그리고 조율과 일관성을 위한 조건들을 결정함에 있어서 평등함이 그러한 조율의 기초가 되어야만 한다.

지침 a) ‘협력 협정’에서 파트너십의 조건을 명확하고 분명하게 정의. 책임, 기여, 의사결정 과정과 책무성 메 커니즘이 존중을 바탕으로 한 논의와 자유의사에 따른 합의에 의해 정해져야 한다. 적절한 자원할 당은 양측 기관을 강화하기 위해 필요하다. 여성의 참여 및 여성에 대한 존중 그리고 여성의 전략적

프레임워크 9

욕구는 파트너십 조건을 결정하는 데 매우 중요한 요소이다. b) 편협한 프로젝트 계약보다는 서로 공유하는 분석, 프로그램 목표, 감독을 위해 모든 협력기관이 보완 적인 행동 조치. 협력 리더십, 적절한 개발 전략을 바탕으로 한 장기적 관계에 투자하고 이를 제도화 한다. 이와 더불어 적절한 핵심 제도 지원, 상호 책무성, 이견 해소를 위한 대화, 모든 이해관계자의 참여도 적절히 고려되어야 한다. c) 공여자의 경우 협력기관의 프로그램 목표와 전략 그리고 행정 시스템에 가능하면 맞추고 협력국 시 스템을 바탕으로 다른 공여자의 요건과 조화 노력 d) 연대를 위한 협력과 국내외적으로 CSO 간 공통의 명분을 통한 시너지 효과를 위해 협력 강화. 플랫 폼, 연합체, 네트워크와 같은 기존의 기회와 구조를 활용하고 새로운 형태의 협력과 학계와 같은 기 타 개발 행위자를 포함할 것을 권장한다. e) 상호 합의한 조건과 진행 중인 위험 관리, 감시, 평가, 정보 공유, 상호학습과정을 위한 메커니즘 마련 f) 국내 상황과 이슈를 수원국의 현실 및 경험과 연결시키는 시민참여활동에 투자. 직접적인 국가 간 참 여, 연대, 보다 심도 있고 주관적인 이해와 관계에 있어서의 충실함 등을 증진한다.

7. 지식 창출 및 공유와 상호 배움 추구 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서 개발 관행과 결과들에서 나온 증거를 접목시키고 현지 및 토착 지역사회들의 지식과 지혜를 포함시키며, 혁신과 자신들이 희망하는 미래를 위한 비전을 강화해 나가면서 자신들의 경험과 다른 CSO들 및 개발 행위자들로부터 배워 나가는 방법을 향상시킬 때 효과적이 된다. 배움을 목적으로 하는 협력과정은 서로 다른 개발 행위자들 사이에서 시너지를 가능하게 함은 물론, 지속가능한 개발의 결과와 영향력을 평가함에 있어 필수불가결한 토대를 제공한다. 개발 학습은 자기 검토와 함께 정보와 지식의 상호 공유를 위한 효과적인 메커니즘들을 필요로 한다. 이것은 CSO 동료, 자원봉사자, 파트너, 영향을 받는 사람 그리고 다른 상대들 사이에서 이뤄지는 교류를 포함한다. CSO들은 학습 조직이며 지식의 창출, 공유 및 실행을 자신들의 전략과 활동방식의 핵심 요소로 삼아 야 한다. 이러한 학습적 접근은 자기 주도적이며 지속적이고, 집단적이며 반복적이고, 참여^개방성 및 신뢰에 기초한 것이어야만 한다. 상호 배움의 과정은 파트너들이 서로 존중하고 이해할 수 있도록 돕는 데 특히 현지 지식, 문화적 이슈, 양성 관계, 가치, 영성 및 여러 가지 일하는 방식에 있어서 그러하다. 진 정한 상호 배움을 방해할 수 있는 권력 불균형이 인지되고 개선될 때에만 이러한 배움이 가능하다. 조직 차원의 학습을 지원하고 CSO 개발효과성을 향상시키기 위해서는 충분한 자원을 갖춘 맞춤형 역량 강화 가 매우 중요하다. 개발 파트너들 및 관련된 이해관계자들과 긴밀히 협력하면서 이뤄지는 정기적인 질 적 평가는 CSO의 개발 활동에서의 전략, 우선순위 및 방법론들을 조정하고 다듬어 나가는 데 있어 필수 적이다. 그러나 조직 차원의 학습은 ‘단기 성과 관리’라는 보다 제한된 과정 그 이상의 것이어야 한다.

지침 a) 체계적으로 서로 배우고 교류할 수 있는 기회와 환경 마련. 기관 및 프로그램 활동에서 그리고 단체 간에 참여, 개방 신뢰를 바탕으로 해야 한다. 배운 것은 조직의 의사결정 과정과 사고 및 관행에 반 영되어야 한다.

10 프레임워크

b) CSO 지식의 바탕이 될 믿을 만한 데이터와 정보 수집 및 공유를 중점적으로 할 수 있는 전문적이고 윤리적으로 책임감 있는 방식 및 수단 구축 c) 혁신과 역량 강화 및 개발 성과 개선을 위해 CSO 간 네트워크, 연합체 그리고 다자간 대화를 통해 지 식을 공유할 수 있도록 협력 촉진 d) CSO 개발 프로그램과 정책 대화에서 개발과 천연자원 관리에 대한 다른 접근방식을 지지하면서 지 역 고유의 지식이나 대대로 전해 내려오는 지혜 및 영성을 인정하고 촉진

8. 긍정적이고 지속가능한 변화 실현을 위한 노력 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서 가난하고 소외된 사람들에 대해 특별히 역점을 두고 사람들을 위한 변화가 지 속될 수 있는 결과와 조건들에 초점을 맞추면서 자신들의 개발 활동의 지속가능한 결과와 영향력을 실현하 기 위해 협력함으로써 현재와 미래 세대에게까지 지속되는 유산(legacy)을 보존할 때 효과적이 된다. CSO들은 파트너십을 맺고 일하고 지역사회의 권한을 강화하며 개발로 인해 영향을 받는 사람들과의 연대 안에서 행동하면서 장기적인 노력을 기울임으로써 지속가능한 개발의 성과들을 이뤄낸다. 개발을 통한 긍정적인 변화는 개발 행위자들 간의 상호보완성, 그리고 불평등, 가난, 소외의 근본 원인들에 대 한 초점을 통해 지속되어야 한다. 분쟁 이후의 상황들에서 CSO들은 평화와 국가건설을 위한 노력의 중 요한 한 부분을 담당하게 된다. 국가의 역할과 영향범위(reach)가 감소된 이와 같은 상황에서는 CSO들 이 긴요하게 기여를 하고 중요한 공백을 메우게 되나, CSO들이 국가의 책임을 대체하는 것이 아니라 보 완하는 것이어야 한다. 교육과 보건과 같은 공공재를 제공하고 이에 대한 책무를 지는 것은 국가의 책임 이다. 그러나 공공재를 제공할 국가의 역량은 강화되어야 한다. 종종 복잡하고 장기적인 일들을 수행하는 CSO들은 평가, 증거의 제시, 자신들의 활동의 영향력과 지 속가능성에 대한 의사소통의 중요성을 인정한다. CSO 활동에 있어 지속가능한 변화는 개발 활동의 모 든 측면에 걸쳐 성평등에 대한 확고한 의지를 요구한다. CSO가 사회변화에 긍정적으로 기여한 것에 대 한 효과성 평가는 현지 대상자들 및 영향을 받는 사람들의 견해를 중심으로 실시되어야 한다. 특히 분쟁 중 또는 분쟁 이후의 상황들이라면 CSO의 평가는 변화를 위한 CSO의 개발 결과들의 지속가능성에 도 움이 되거나 부정적인 영향을 미치는 광범위한 사회 경제적 및 정치적 과정들을 고려해야만 한다.

지침 a) 개발 활동의 지속가능한 영향과 공유 혹은 상호 합의한 개발 목표 옹호를 극대화하기 위해 다른 개발 이해관계자와의 협력과 정책대화 강화 b) 고용촉진 프로그램 및 민생 중심의 경제개발 등 개발 프로그램에 민간 영역의 참여 유도. 이때 인권 기준, 민주적 주인의식, 적당한 일자리, 지속가능한 개발에 바탕을 두어야 한다. 이러한 노력은 특히 비공식 영역 및 여성 그리고 사회의 취약계층을 고려하면서 도시 및 농어촌 지역에서의 지속가능한 생계욕구를 해결하고 사회적 포용을 추구하며 자원에 대한 접근성을 창출해야 한다. c) 프로그램 시행과 애드보커시 등 개발 활동을 계획, 감독 및 평가하는 데 참여적 수단 이용. 직원, 자원 봉사자, 협력기관이 빈곤층과 소외계층에게 지속되는 변화를 가져다 줄 수 있는, 장기적으로 지속 가능한 개발 결과를 위한 조건을 결정하고 평가할 수 있도록 분석적 능력을 배양한다.

프레임워크 11

d) 평등한 파트너십, 애드보커시, 성평등, 네트워킹, 촉진(facilitation) 및 영향 평가 등을 다루는 종합적 인 역량 강화 프로그램을 통해 CSO의 역량 향상 e) CSO의 재정적 지속가능성과 독립성 강화. 정치적으로 연관된 지원이나 조건이 있는 원조의 의존도 를 낮추기 위해서 어디든 가능한 곳에서 자금조달을 받을 수 있도록 그 기반을 넓힌다. f) 공평하고 올바른 개발에 대해 상대기관과 그 지역 주민들과 함께 쌍방으로 논의를 강화하면서 주민 들을 세계시민으로 참여시키고 또 교육

세션 III : CSO 책무성 메커니즘 강화 CSO의 임무(mandate)는 책무를 다할 그들의 책임의 근거 모든 개발 행위자들은 특히 그들의 일차적(primary) 회원 및 개발로 인해 가장 많은 영향을 받는 지역의 주민들과 더불어 자신들의 개입과 행동의 결과를 보여줄 책임이 있다. CSO들은 자신들의 개발 행동과 결과 에 대해 전적으로 책무를 다하고 투명해야 한다는 다섯 번째 이스탄불 원칙에 명시된 이같은 의무를 인정하 고 진지하게 받아들인다. 시민사회단체들에게 있어 책무성은 공익을 위한 변화의 주체(agents of change) 로서 그들의 활동에 내재된 각자의 독특한 임무에 따라 그들이 속한 지역사회 주민들, 그리고 단체의 활동 을 지지하는 대중들과 관련하여 형성되는 것이다. 이러한 책임은 각각의 조직과 국가의 상황에 맞는 다양한 CSO 책무성 메커니즘의 실행을 통해 실천된다. 개발 행위자로서 CSO들은 대중들과 지역 이 책무성과 투명성 관련 CSO 프로그램의 예

해관계자들로부터 상당한 신뢰를 받고 있다. 대

•• CSO 투명성 제고를 위한 투명성과 책무성을 위한 NGO들 (콜롬비아) • • 가장 많은 국제 CSO가 동의한 책무성 헌장 (전세계) •• NGO 원조 지도 (인터액션 – 미국), 식량안보와 아이

부분의 CSO들은 높은 수준의 관리 및 정직성

티 구호를 위한 전세계 CSO 활동에 관한 웹 기반 지 도 플랫폼 •• NGO를 위한 윤리적 원칙 규범과 최소한의 기준 (캄 보디아 협력위원회, CCC), 캄보디아의 CSO 거버넌 스 개선을 위한 자가증명 시스템 오픈포럼의 “이행 안내서”에 더 많은 예와 책무성 및 투명 성을 위한 CSO 메커니즘에 대한 자료 출처들이 나와 있다.

(probity)을 실천하고 있다. CSO들은 또한 책무

성과 투명성 관련 관행을 개선하라는 합당한 요 구에 계속해서 부응하고 있다. CSO들은 선출된 이사회에 의한 감독 강화, 프로그램 파트너들과 의 투명한 논의 진행, 조직 구성원들과의 명확한 의사소통, 프로그램 보고서 및 외부 재무감사 결 과에 대한 접근 허용, 정부의 규제 감독 준수, 그 리고 CSO 자체의 다양한 행동 수칙과 투명성 메 커니즘을 통해 그렇게 해 왔다. CSO 책무성 메커 니즘은 또한 – 종종 공여국 및 개도국 모두의 경

우 – 그들의 책무성이 지닌 다각도적인 특성을 감안하여야 하는데, 우선 일차적인 이해관계자들에 대한 책 무성도 있지만 동료, 파트너, 대중 지지자, 공공 및 민간 공여자들에 대한 책무성도 똑같이 있다.

12 프레임워크

CSO들에게는 탄탄한 책무성과 투명성 관행을 위한 주된 책임이 있지만 어려운 정치 환경에서 활동하는 데 제약이 있어 이를 실행하기 위한 노력이 제한될 수 있다. 정부가 소외계층이나 차별당하는 사람들이 조직 화되어 공공정책에 참여하고 지역사회 중심의 개발 과정을 동행할 수 있는 기본적인 인권을 보장해 주지 않 는 경우, CSO 책무성 메커니즘을 시행하기란 도전이 될 수 있다. CSO 책무성 메커니즘에는 다양한 형태가 있다. 즉, 지역사회에 기반한 보다 작은 규모의 CSO들에 존재 하는, 덜 형식을 갖추고 때로는 눈에 보이지 않는 책무성 관행도 포함된다. 원 월드 트러스트(One World Trust)는 수십 개의 자발적인 CSO 책무성 메커니즘들을 지역 단위에서 국가 단위, 나아가 전세계 단위까

지 정리하였다. 유명한 전세계 CSO 네트워크인 CIVICUS는 CSO 투명성과 책무성에 대한 동료 간 학습과 지식 공유를 증진하기 위해 중요한 다년도 프로그램(합법성, 투명성, 책무성(Legitimacy, Transparency and Accountability)이라고 불리는)을 추진중이다.

책무성 메커니즘에 대한 도전들 인식하기 책무성과 관련해서 CSO들은 대내외적으로 책무성을 행동으로 보여 주는 데 있어서 많은 고유의 도전들 에 직면한다. 그러한 도전들에는 CSO 행위자들의 많은 수와 다양성, 평등한 파트너십을 존중해야만 하는 접 근방식, 자발성을 기초로 하는 단체 및 행동, 변화하는 정치환경에 의해 생겨나는 의도하지 않은 결과들, 그 리고 책무성에 대한 다각적인 요구(법적, 계약상의 및 윤리적 요구)가 포함된다. 모든 상황과 모든 종류의 단 체에 맞는 한 가지 책무성 모델은 존재하지 않는다. 따라서 CSO들은 개별 및 공동의 책무성을 강화할 수 있 는 메커니즘들에 대한 실질적인 접근방식을 개선하기 위해 현재의 관행에서 배운 교훈들을 서로 공유하는 것을 환영하고 권장하는 바이다. 책무성을 위한 CSO의 과정과 노력은 단순히 감사를 받은 재무결과를 공개하는 것 이상을 의미한다. CSO 책무성은 빈곤층의 의견을 고려하려는 노력을 극대화한다는 것을 뜻한다. 하지만 CSO 책무성 메커니즘은 CSO가 풀뿌리 지역사회와 빈곤층 및 개발의 영향을 받는 다른 사람들과 관련해서 기울인 노력을 어떻게 측 정할 것인가와 관련된 몇 가지 실질적인 도전들에 직면한다. CSO는 종종 다양한 파트너십을 맺고 활동하며 공여국과 개도국 정부에 의해서 세워진 매우 다른 정책 및 규제들을 가진 국가 상황 속에서 활동한다. 이는 CSO의 건실한 책무성의 범위를 좁히는 바람직하지 않은 환경인 것이다. CSO 책무성이 개발효과성으로 이어질 수 있도록 하는 가치 중심의 원칙들로서 이스탄불 원칙은 다양한 해석이 가능하다. 이러한 원칙들과 관련한 책무성의 적절하고 객관적인 기준은 정황에 따라 달라질 수 있고 때때로 특성상 이를 확립하고 감독하는 것이 어려울 수 있을 것이다. 이는 특히 분쟁상황과 분쟁 후에 활동 하는 CSO들에게 그러하다. CSO 책무성 메커니즘은 직접적으로 측정 가능한 개발 결과뿐만 아니라 변화를 위한 애드보커시와 동원 (mobilization)과 같이 결과 측정이 쉽지 않은 영역에도 초점을 맞춰야 한다.

프레임워크 13

CSO들은 책무성의 꼭 필요한 기준으로서 최대한의 투명성을 보장하기 위해 노력한다. 하지만 온전한 책 무성의 실현을 위해서는 시의성, 비용, 업무량, 파트너나 취약한 상태에 있는 개인들의 사생활 및 권리보호 와 같은 실질적인 도전들에도 대처해야만 한다. 투명성 기준을 이행하는 것은 CSO의 다양한 제도적 상황(조 직의 규모나 조직 시스템 개선의 필요성, 직원과 자원봉사자 훈련 및 역량 강화, 보고 및 감사 시스템 개선 혹은 감 독과 평가를 위해 배당된 자원 필요성 등)에 민감할 수밖에 없다. 많은 중소규모 CSO들의 경우, 연대의 과정 (CSO 네트워크, 동맹, 연합체 등)이 공동의 책무성 메커니즘을 통한 대응에 있어 꼭 필요한 수단이 될 수 있다.

책무성 메커니즘 강화 CSO들은 개발 행위자로서 다른 여러 국가 상황들 속에서 모든 주요 이해관계자들에 대한 책무를 다해야 할 자신들의 의무를 진지하게 받아들이고 있다. 따라서 CSO들은 정부나 CSO가 정한 ‘감찰식 규제(policing regulation)’가 아닌 자발적인 책무성 메커니즘의 근본적인 중요성을 강조한다. 전세계적으로 다양한 CSO

들의 존재를 감안할 때, CSO의 자치(autonomy)와 독립성을 수호하기 위해 필수적이고 융통성 있는 CSO 관 행 개선 프레임워크를 제시하는 자발적인 메커니즘만이 현실적이라고 하겠다. 신뢰성 있는 자발적 메커니즘은 그 성격상 어느 정도의 시간에 걸쳐 변화하는 상황에 따라 발전하고 향상 될 필요가 있다. 하지만 중요한 사항은 그것을 준수하고 있다는 것을 증명해 보일 수 있는 메커니즘을 위한 가장 높은 실용적 기준, 그리고 다양한 이해관계자들에게 믿을 만한 실천을 보장할 수 있는 혁신적인 방법과 관련된 CSO들의 노력이다. 책무성 메커니즘의 좋은 관행, CSO 개발관행 개선을 위한 지침, 그리고 오픈포럼(Open Forum)을 통한 국가 단위의 CSO 논의들은 몇 가지 앞으로 가야 할 길을 제시하고 있다. 오픈포럼에서는 CSO 책무성 메커 니즘을 강화하기 위한 몇 가지 기본 접근방식이 권고사항으로 나왔다. 1. 이스탄불 원칙과 본 프레임워크의 지침은 책무성 기준의 토대가 되지만 책무성 메커니즘은 보다 폭 넓은 조직의 거버넌스 문제도 다루어야만 한다. 2. 자발적인 메커니즘에서는 무엇에 대해, 누가, 누구에게 책임을 져야 하는지가 명확해야 한다. 3. 자발적인 자기 규제 메커니즘 및 상황에 맞는 요구조건들은 실제 자신들의 활동이 평가받게 되는 사 람들과 함께 개발하는 것이 가장 좋다. 가능한 경우 주요 이해관계자들과도 상의해야 한다. 책무성 메커니즘은 조직의 학습 그리고 도전들에 대처하기 위한 조치들을 증진해야 한다. 4. 행동 수칙과 책무성 메커니즘은 주요 이해관계자들에게 접근 가능하며 유의미한 것이어야 한다. 주 요 이해관계자들에 대한 책임을 다하기 위해서는 의사소통이 분명하고 접근 가능하며, 현지의 상황 에 적합하게 그것을 존중하는 방식으로 이루어져야 한다. 5. 다양하고 종종 예측하기 어려운 상황들 속에서 현실적으로 적용이 가능한 메커니즘을 위해서는 융 통성과 적응성이 반드시 있어야 한다.

14 프레임워크

6. 메커니즘은 모범적인 관행을 만들어야 하고 CSO 자신이 받아들이지 않은 원칙과 성과측정 방식을 다른 이에게 강요해서는 안된다. 7. 이미 존재하는 메커니즘이나 교훈들이 국가 단위의 책무성 강화를 위해, 특히 CSO 네트워크를 통해 활용되어야 한다. 책무성 메커니즘을 강화하는 데 있어서 중요한 점은 믿을 수 있는 실천을 보여 주 고 중복이나 반복 및 지나친 거래 비용 발생을 피하는 것이다.

섹션 IV : CSO 개발효과성 제고를 가능하게 하는 필수 조건 ― 정책과 실행 들어가며 CSO가 독립적이고 자치적인 성격을 띠긴 하지만 그렇다고 별개로 활동하는 개발 행위자는 아니다. 개발 효과성 원칙을 지킬 수 있는 CSO 역량은 다른 개발 행위자들의 활동에 영향을 받는다. CSO는 개발 행위자로 활동하고 있는 상황에 매우 많은 영향을 받는다. 개도국 정부와 공적 공여국의 정 책과 관행이 CSO가 개발에 참여할 수 있는 역량에 영향을 주고 또 이를 결정한다. 따라서 CSO 관행에서 이 스탄불 원칙을 어느 정도 실현할 수 있는가는 많은 부분 이를 가능하게 하는 정부 정책, 법 그리고 이스탄불 원칙에 맞는 규정에 달렸다. 2008년 아크라 원조 회의에서 모든 공여자와 정부들은 개발에 있어서 CSO의 기여를 극대화하기 위해 이를 가능케 하는 우호적인 환경(enabling environment) 조성을 위해 CSO와 협력하겠다고 다 짐했다. 하지만 그때 이후 부국과 빈국에 있는 많은 CSO들은 활동 에 있어서 오히려 환경이 악화됨을 경험했다. CSO는 공적 공여자 를 포함한 모든 정부에게 국가, 지역 및 세계 차원에서 개발 행위자 인 CSO에 영향을 주는 현 정책, 규정, 관행을 CSO와 함께 검토할 것을 촉구한다. CSO를 개발 행위자로 존중하기 위해서는 기획 및 개발 계획과 전략 수립 등 개발과정의 모든 단계에 CSO가 전적으

‘우호적인 환경’과 ‘우호적인 기준’ ‘우호적인 환경’은 CSO의 활동방식 에 영향을 줄 수 있는 정부와 공적 공 여자 및 기타 개발 행위자들에 의해 만들어진 정치적^정책적 상황이다. ‘우호적인 기준’은 CSO 개발 행위자 의 역량을 지원하여 개발과정에 지 속적으로 그리고 효과적으로 참여할 수 있도록 한 공여자와 정부의 상호 연관된 일련의 모범 사례이다.

로 참여할 수 있도록 보장하는 환경이 필요하다.

CSO가 효과적인 개발을 할 수 있게 하는 우호적인 환경(enabling environment)이 우선 효과적인 개발을 할 수 있게 하는 우호적인 환경(enabling environment)은 복잡하다. 모든 개발 행위자들 은 끊이지 않는 다양한 전 지구의, 그리고 지역의 경제^사회^기후 위기 그리고 분쟁상황에 영향을 받는다.

프레임워크 15

정치적 상황도 역시 중요하다. 정도의 차이는 있지만 개도국 및 공여국에서 모두 CSO가 주도하는 개발 활동 의 여지가 좁아졌다. 수십년간 CSO는 영향력을 최대로 끌어올리기 위해 파트너십을 맺어 왔다. CSO는 서 로 합의된 우선순위를 바탕으로 자신들의 협력기관을 자유롭게 선택할 수 있는 환경이 필요하다. 민간영역도 개발에 영향을 미치는 중요한 주체다. 민간영역은 시장강화 및 임시직 등 빈곤층을 위한 적당 한 일자리 마련의 측면에서 중요하다. CSO는 개발 행위자로서 민간 영리추구 주체들의 관행에 영향을 받는 데 특히 이들의 활동이 지속가능한 민생을 저해하는 경우에는 더더욱 영향을 받을 수 있다. CSO 효과성 증 진을 가능하게 하기 위해서는 민간영역 주체들이 사회적 논의를 통해, 그리고 국제적으로 합의된 개발 목표 와 빈곤 해소를 위한 행동을 통해 다른 개발 행위자와 함께 협력하려고 분명히 노력하는 것이 필요하다. 또 한 인권과 성평등, 환경적 지속가능성, 적당한 일자리에 관한 협약과 기준들을 지켜야 한다. CSO 개발효과성을 위한 국제 프레임워크는 CSO가 자신들의 개발 활동을 평가하고 개선하는 데 필요한 원칙과 중요한 가이드라인을 제시하고 있다. CSO는 정부 및 공적 공여자를 만나 이스탄불 원칙을 토대로 CSO가 개발 활동에서 잠재력을 최대한 발휘할 수 있게 하는 정책에 대해 논의하였다. 정부와 다자 단체들은 아크라 행동강령(AAA : Accra Agenda for Action)에서 이를 보장하겠다고 다짐했다. 따라서 오픈포럼에서는 CSO 개발효과성과 이를 가능하게 하는 환경에 관한 다자간 테스크팀의 활동과 테스크팀이 제4차 세계개발원조총회(2011년 11월 개최)를 위해 내놓은 주요 연구결과를 환영하고 지지하는 바이며, 이는 CSO가 개발 활동을 효과적으로 할 수 있게 하는 환경(enabling environment)을 만들고 또 강 화시키는 데 긍정적인 기여를 할 것이라 생각한다.

원조 효과성에 관한 파리 원칙 적용을 심화시키는 CSO 개발효과성을 위한 이스탄불 원칙 2008년 아크라 행동강령은 CSO가 ‘어떻게 원조 효과성에 관한 파리 원칙을 CSO 관점에서 적용할 것인 가(AAA, 20항)’에 대한 고민을 하게 만든 계기가 되었다. CSO 개발효과성을 위한 이스탄불 원칙은 다자 이 해관계자가 파리 원칙을 더 잘 이해하고 이를 위해 더 노력할 수 있도록 한다. 이스탄불 원칙은 CSO에 대해 광범위하고 포괄적이며 민주적인 개발 주인의식의 중요성을 반영하고 있는데, 이는 아크라 행동강령에서도 새천년개발목표(MDG) 달성과 파리 선언 이행을 위해 반드시 필요한 사항이라고 인정하고 있다. 이스탄불 원칙의 내용과 다자 이해관계자와의 논의를 위한 오픈포럼 개최는 빈곤퇴치라는 공동의 약속을 위해 모든 주체들의 공조를 확대하고 우선시하겠다는 CSO의 의지를 보여 준다. (AAA, 20, 32항) 하지만 공 여자와 정부 측이 기본적인 최소한의 기준들을 지켜 주지 않는다면 CSO가 이스탄불 원칙을 이행하기는 어 려울 것이다. 파리 선언과 아크라 행동강령에 조인한 모든 정부는 CSO를 포함한 개발 행위자들이 원조뿐만 아니라 개발효과성을 위해 일할 수 있는 환경을 만들기 위해 이들과 함께 협력해야 한다.

16 프레임워크

CSO의 효과적인 개발 활동을 가능케 하는 우호적인 환경

1. 모든 정부는 시민들이 단결하여 개발에 참여할 수 있도록 기본적인 인권 보장의 의무를 다해야 한다 대부분의 국가에서 CSO와 그 직원 및 자원봉사자들은 바뀌는 정책과 정부의 제한조치에서 오는 정치적^ 재정적^제도적 어려움을 겪어 왔다. CSO는 이러한 제한적인 정책으로 CSO가 활동할 수 있는 민주적^법적 공간이 줄어들 것을 우려하고 있다. 예를 들어, 대테러 법안을 무리하게 적용하거나 제약이 더 많은 재정 및 규제 체제를 시행하여 CSO 활동이 어려워질 수 있고, 정치적 활동을 제한하기 위해 또는 인권운동을 하거나 정부정책에 비판적인 CSO 리더들을 억압하기 위해 공권력을 사용하기도 한다. 일부 CSO 주체들, 특히 아프 리카의 주체들은 국가 간 CSO 교류 및 지역적^세계적 활동 협력과 관련하여 출장을 가야 할 때 비자를 제때 에 받지 못해 어려움을 겪고 있다. CSO는 민주적 거버넌스와 모두를 위한 포용적인 개발 활동을 강화하고 이에 기여하기 위해 정부 및 기타 이해관계자들과 함께 계속해서 협력하고 있다. 민주적 정부가 되기 위해서는 법^규제 및 몇 가지 기본적인 원칙이나 기준을 지키는 관행이 있어야 한다. 이러한 원칙이나 기준은 활발하고 효과적인 시민사회*가 되기 위한 전제 조건으로 다음과 같은 것들이 있다. ○○ 결사와 집회의 자유 보장 ○○ CSO의 법률적 지위 인정 ○○ 표현의 자유 보장 ○○ 이주의 자유 및 이동권과 여행권 보장 ○○ 국가 간섭 없이 활동할 권리 보장 ○○ 개발에 있어서 합법적 역할을 하기 위해 필요한 자원을 찾고 확보할 법적 여지(legal space) 보장

공공 당국은 국제법에 따라 시민사회단체나 단체 회원 혹은 직원의 생명이 위협받을 때 이를 보호해 주어 야 한다. CSO는 평화로운 결사와 집회의 권리에 관한 2010 UN 인권위원회 결의안을 환영하는 바이다. CSO는 모 든 정부가 상기의 권리를 감독하기 위해 지정된 UN 보고관(Rapporteur)에게 전적으로 협력할 것을 촉구한다.

2. 수원국 정부와 공적 공여자의 중점 사항 a) CSO를 고유의 권리를 가진 개발 행위자로 인정

아크라 행동강령(AAA)에서 CSO를 고유의 권리를 가진 개발 행위자로 인정(20항)한 것은 CSO가 개발에 있어서 뚜렷한 기여를 할 수 있도록 길을 열어 주는 중대한 진전이었다. CSO는 사회에 뿌리를 두고, 특히 가

* 이와 같은 원칙의 구성과 제시는 ‘시민 사회를 보호하는 국제 원칙’에서 나왔다. “시민사회 수호(Defending Civil Society)”라 는 2008년 2월에 나온 세계 민주운동 관련 보고서로 www.wmd.org/projects/defending-civil-society에서 볼 수 있다. 이러 한 권리는 UN 민권 및 정치적 권리에 관한 국제 협약과 기타 다자간, 역내 협약에서 보장하고 있다.

프레임워크 17

난하고 차별 속에 사는 사람들과 함께 하기에 매우 중요한 개발 행위자다. CSO는 보조적인 서비스 제공자이 자 사회 조직자로서, 또 모든 개발과정의 측면에서 시민 참여를 결집시키는 주체로서 다양한 역할을 하고 있 는데 이러한 역할은 축소가 아니라 확대되어야 한다. 모든 정부는 고유의 권한을 가진 독립적인 개발 행위자 로 CSO의 전적인 참여를 지지하고 보장하여야 하며 민간영역과 같은 다른 주체와 CSO를 구분하여야 한다. b) 개발효과성 증진을 위한 민주적^정치적^정책 대화 구축

개도국, 공여국 정부 모두 개발의 모든 단계 정치 및 정책 대화에 CSO가 포함되어 의미 있는 참여를 할 수 있는 조건을 제공해야 한다. CSO는 개발 관련 지식을 널리 퍼트리고 또 창출하는 주체이다. 특히 CSO는 빈 곤층 남성, 여성 및 여아, 남아 그리고 소외계층의 경험과 의견이 정책 및 우선과제 선정 과정에 반영되도록 한다. 모든 주체들은 상호 이해와 신뢰, 공동의 지식을 키울 수 있는 민주적인 대화 역량을 강화할 수 있도록 함께 노력해야 한다. 오픈포럼 과정에서 CSO는 포용적인 정치 및 정책 대화에 심각한 장벽, 그래서 꼭 해결되어야 할 장벽을 나열해 보았다. 모범이 되는 관행(good practice)을 기초로 CSO는 장벽을 넘어서기 위한 필수 조건을 확인 해 보았다. 1. 다양한 의견, 특히 풀뿌리 기반 사회단체, 여성 단체, 원주민 대표의 의견을 체계적으로 수용 2. 목적과 과정의 투명성 및 명확성 3. 국가 전략 및 프로그램 계획을 포함한 정보 이용의 자유 4. 의견을 반영하고자 하는 사람들의 언어로 된 문서 제공 5. 결정에 영향을 미칠 수 있도록 적당한 시기에 의견 수렴 6. 다른 주체 특히 국회의원과 지방정부의 책임 및 기여 인정 7. 이해관계자들이 전적으로 참여할 수 있도록 하는 데 필요한 적절한 재원 정부 및 공여자들은 국가 상황에 맞는 개발 프로그램을 계획, 설계, 전달하는 데 있어서 지역 CSO가 이에 대해 충분히 의견을 낼 수 있도록 보장해야 한다. c) 투명하고 일관성 있는 개발 정책에 대한 책임

정부는 개발 우선순위, 전략, 계획, 행동에 대한 완전한 투명성과 책무성을 포함한 굿 거버넌스의 원칙을 실천해야 한다. 감시자(watchdog)의 역할로 CSO는 공적 자원이 빈곤 해소와 공평한 성장의 효과를 극대화 하는 데 쓰이도록 보장할 수 있다. 마찬가지로 공적 공여자는 국가차원의 프로그램 이행 계획 등 공여 전략 프레임워크와 계획에 있어 CSO의 위치와 역할을 정의하는 투명하고 일관성 있는 정책을 마련해야 한다. d) CSO 개발효과성 제고를 가능케 하는 재원 조달

공여 관계는 정의상으로 CSO에 대한 개발 재원에 대한 권한에 바탕을 둔 관계다. 공여자로서 CSO가 역 할을 할 때, 공적 공여자가 공평한 파트너십을 맺는 데 있어서 겪는 많은 비슷한 문제에 직면하게 된다. 하 지만 CSO도 역시 공적 공여 자금 지원양식과 정책에 영향을 받고 또 때때로 이로 인해 제한을 받기도 한다. CSO 개발효과성은 다음과 같은 조건에서 공적 공여자가 자금을 지원하는 방식을 통해서 가능하다. 1) CSO 는 공익을 제공한다는 인식하에 핵심적인 제도 지원을 포함하여 장기적인 결과 중심의 관점을 가지고 자금 지원 2) CSO의 제안에 응하는 방식 3) 다른 규모의 CSO를 지원하는 등 다양한 CSO가 이용할 수 있는 방식

18 프레임워크

4) 예측 가능하고 투명하며 쉽게 납득할 만한 조화로운 방식 5) 지역 자원 동원을 증진 6) 정책 개발 및 애드 보커시를 포함한 CSO 프로그램과 혁신의 다양한 영역을 지원 소외계층을 옹호하는 활발한 시민사회는 공익이다. 정부들은 이와 같은 CSO의 중요한 역할을 인정하여 세제 및 기타 메커니즘을 통한 재정지원을 하고 이로써 시민사회 주체들이 계속 활동하고 지속가능할 수 있 도록 보장해야 한다.

CSO를 위한 우호적인 환경을 틀 잡아 주는 기준들에서의 진전 원조효과성 워킹 파티(Working Party on Aid Effectiveness)의 포용적인 다자간의 특성으로 인해, CSO의 효과적인 개발 활동을 가능케 하는 조건에 관한 논의를 진행하고 증거를 제공하는 특별한 기회를 가질 수 있 었다. 오픈포럼에서는 CSO 개발효과성과 이를 가능케 하는 우호적인 환경에 관한 다자간 테스크팀의 활동 과 2011년 3월에 체결된 제4차 세계개발원조총회에 보내는 핵심 메시지에 대한 합의를 환영하고, 이는 CSO 활동 기준을 강화하는 데 긍정적이고 중대한 기여를 한다고 생각한다. 다자간 테스크팀은 5가지 영역에서 중요한 기준을 발전시켰다. 1) CSO를 고유의 권리를 가진 독립적 개 발 행위자로 인정 2) 인권 기준을 바탕으로 CSO가 효과적인 개발 활동을 할 수 있는 환경 제공 3) 공여자의 CSO 지원모델 심화 4) CSO 개발효과성 강화 5) 책무성과 투명성 보장 – CSO의 이스탄불 원칙 이행과 일맥 상통하는 공동의 권고안에 따라 – (부록 3 참조 : 테스크팀의 주요 핵심 메시지 내용) 파리 선언의 다섯 가지 원칙과 아크라 행동강령의 완전한 이행은 이미 조인국 정부가 CSO의 개발 활동이 가능한 환경을 제공하는 의무를 의미한다. CSO 개발효과성에 관한 CSO 오픈포럼은 모든 파리 선언 조인국 에게 이러한 의무를 온전히 이행할 것을 촉구한다. 본 프레임워크는 국가, 지역, 전세계 차원에서 진행 중인 다자간 대화의 근간이 될 수 있고 이로써 CSO가 온전히 개발 행위자로 활동할 수 있게 하는 법과 규정, 정책 및 관행을 내놓을 수 있다.

섹션 V : 앞으로 가야 할 길 오픈포럼을 통해 전세계 CSO는 특별한 자아성찰의 여정을 떠나 정체성과 역할, 효과적인 개발 행위자로 서의 CSO에 관한 원칙을 되짚어 보는 시간을 가졌다. 그 결과가 전세계 CSO의 합의라고 할 수 있는 캄보디 아 씨엠립(Siem Reap)에 모인 70개국 240명의 CSO 대표에 의해 전적으로 채택된 CSO 개발효과성을 위한 국제 프레임워크이다. ‘실행 툴킷(Implementation Toolkit)’과 함께 본 프레임워크는 전세계 어디에서 활동 하는 CSO든 그 지역 시민과 전반적인 사회에 반응하고 또 평등하고 더 나은 세상을 만드는 데 필요한 도구 를 제공하고 있다.

프레임워크 19

모든 개발 행위자 – CSO, 정부, 공여자 – 가 서로 상호 의존적이며 빈곤층과 소외계층을 위한 개발 결과를 효과적으로 가져오기 위해서 반드시 협력해야 한다. 이 주체들은 역동적인 CSO 영역에 공통적으로 관심을 갖고 있다. CSO는 이스탄불 원칙을 바탕으로 개발 행위자로서 CSO 영역을 강화하기 위한 확고한 의지를 가지고 한 국 부산에서 열릴 제4차 세계원조회의(HLF-4)에 참석할 것이다. CSO는 제4차 세계원조회의에 참석하는 모 든 정부에게 오픈포럼 과정을 인정하고, 개발에 있어서 시민사회 참여와 지원정책의 중요한 근간으로 이스 탄불 원칙을 승인할 것을 촉구한다. CSO는 HLF-4이후 이스탄불 원칙 이행과 감독을 위해 논의를 계속할 것을 다짐한다. 이러한 논의는 여러 차원에서 진행될 것이다. 즉, 국가 및 분야별 회의, CSO 개발 관행에 관한 자체 논의, 자체 평가, 동료 간 검 토, 빈곤층을 직접 대변하는 단체를 포함한 개발 이해관계자와의 대화 등을 통해 논의될 것이다. 모든 개발 행위자는 세계 인권 기준에 맞는 MDG를 비롯하여 국제적으로 합의된 개발 목표에 대한 책무 성을 강화하기 위해 최선의 노력을 다해야 한다. 개발 관행을 개선할 책임을 인정하고 있는 CSO도 여기에 있어서 예외가 아니다. 이와 같이 CSO는 경험과 우수 사례를 바탕으로 책무성 메커니즘을 평가하고 개선할 것이다. 이 때 개발효과성을 위한 이스탄불 원칙이 국가 상황에 맞게 적용되어야 함과 개발 행위자로서 CSO 의 독립성과 자치성을 존중하는 가운데 이를 수행할 것이다. CSO는 개도국 정부와 공적 공여자, 다자간 기관이 CSO 개발효과성 원칙 이행과 이행중에 생기는 문제 해결에 참여하는 것을 환영한다. 모든 이해관계자가 미해결된 CSO 개발효과성 문제 해결을 위해 공동의 그 리고 개별적인 제도적 노력을 하고 있는 가운데, 오픈포럼은 HLF-4때까지 그리고 그 이후에도 고위급 대화 를 계속 이어가자는 CSO 개발효과성 테스크팀의 제안을 환영한다. 모든 개발 행위자는 개발 협력에서의 개혁을 통해 인권과 성평등, 사회정의를 실현하기 위해 계속해서 협 력해야 한다. 원칙과 기준 및 지침을 담은 본 CSO 개발효과성을 위한 국제 프레임워크는 이러한 개혁에 있 어서 중대한 CSO의 기여이다.

20 프레임워크

프레임워크 21

이스탄불, 터키 2010년 9월 29일

22 프레임워크

부록 2 개발에 있어서 CSO의 역할 CSO는 영리를 추구하지 않으며 시민들의 결사 및 의사발언의 권리를 행사하기 위해 자발적으로 생긴 조 직이다. CSO는 사회 연대, 사회 서비스 및 사회 참여의 통로로 시민들이 삶의 조건을 개선하고 보다 민주적 인 사회를 세우기 위해 자신들의 권리를 더 잘 주장할 수 있도록 돕는다. 이것이 CSO가 개발 행위자가 될 수 있는 이유이자 CSO가 개발 행위자로서 갖는 신뢰의 근거이다. CSO를 통해 시민들은 국가나 정부가 인권을 존중^보호^실현할 의무를 다하도록 적극적으로 자신들의 시민의식을 발휘할 수 있다. 독자적으로 혹은 다른 개발 행위자 및 CSO와 협력하여 CSO가 개발 영역에서 목표하는 바는 다음과 같다. a) 지역사회와 빈곤층, 소외계층의 자활과 지역개발 혁신에 직접 참여하고 이를 지원. b) 지역 차원에서 기본적인 서비스 제공과 꼭 필요한 인프라 구축. 특히 질병예방 및 보건, 교육, 상하 수도와 같은 사회 서비스를 제공하는 동시에 지역사회에 힘을 실어 시민들에게 이러한 서비스를 누 릴 권리를 정부에게 요구할 수 있게 한다. c) 소외된 풀뿌리 지역사회와 빈곤에 시달리는 주민들, 특히 여성이 자신들의 권리를 찾을 수 있도록 힘을 실어 준다. 이를 포용적인 역량 강화와 사회 동원화(social mobilization) 촉진, 지역 및 국가 개 발에 있어서 시민 의견 반영 및 공공정책에 시민참여 증진을 통해 실현한다. d) 지역사회와 시민사회, 민간 영역, 지자체 및 다른 개발 행위자의 참여를 유도하여 상호 합의한 개발 우선과제와 접근방식을 바탕으로 서로 협력하고 시너지 효과를 추구한다. e) 원주민의 권리와 그들의 잘 사는 삶(vivir bien – living well)의 개념을 포함한 문화적 가치에 깔린 영 적 가치를 존중하고 반영하는 CSO의 지식, 이슈, 시각, 제안이 공공정책 의제에 반영될 수 있게 한다. f) 지역 지식을 바탕으로 한 정책 조사 및 정책 개발, 정책 대화, 소외계층에 대한 민주적 책임 촉구를 통해 정부 및 공여자의 정책 및 개발 관행을 감시한다. g) 지식 창출, 정보 공유, 세계시민으로의 행동 장려를 통해 민주주의, 연대, 사회정의와 같은 사회 가치 를 교육하고 이러한 가치가 사회 안에 자리잡을 수 있도록 노력한다. h) CSO를 설립하고 지원하는 일이든, 현 CSO의 존립과 목표를 위해 노력하는 일이든 국내외 자원봉 사자의 참여를 권장한다. i) 개발에 필요한 재원 및 인적자원을 찾고 활용한다. 여기에는 지역, 국가, 전지구적 차원의 직접적인 CSO 수혜 혹은 공여 채널로서 개도국에서 국내 및 지역 자금원을 유지하는 것을 포함한다. j) 시민사회 내 혹은 시민사회 간의 CSO 네트워크를 구축하여 대상 주민들의 권리와 삶에 긍정적인 영 향을 미칠 수 있도록 시민에 대한 책무성을 장려한다.

프레임워크 23

부록 3 CSO 개발효과성과 이를 가능하게 하는 환경에 관한 테스크팀의 주요 핵심 메시지 내용 17개의 핵심 메시지 중 테스크팀은 모든 개발 행위자에게 다음 사항을 촉구한다. 1) CSO를 고유의 권리를 가진 독립적인 개발 행위자로 인정하고 다자간 정책 대화의 중요성을 인정한 다. 2) 법적으로, 그리고 실질적으로 CSO가 독립적인 개발 행위자로 활동할 수 있게 하는 환경을 만들 수 있도록 노력하고 또 증진한다. 적어도 기존의 기본권을 보장하는 국제적^지역적 제도를 지키려는 노력을 지속하도록 한다. 3) 주인의식과 일치를 포함한 파리 선언 원칙이 CSO의 효과적인 개발 활동을 가능케 하는 우호적인 환 경을 줄어들게 하는 쪽으로 해석되거나 적용되어서는 안 된다. 4) 고유한 권리를 가진 효과적이고 독립적인 개발 행위자로서 CSO의 역할을 증진하는 데 적당한 정책 과 요건을 통해서 CSO의 효과성에 기여할 수 있도록 지원하는 공여자 모델을 시행한다. 5) CSO의 책무성을 보여 주기 위한 기존의 노력과 그동안의 진전 사항을 인정한다. 동시에 CSO는 계 속 개선해 나갈 필요가 있음을 인정하고 자체 관리하는 책무성 및 투명성 메커니즘과 기준을 적극 적으로 강화하여 적용할 것을 다짐한다. 6) CSO 개발효과성을 위한 이스탄불 원칙과 그에 따른 지침 및 지표를 포함하여 원조 및 개발효과성 원칙을 상황에 맞게 채택하고 적용할 것을 권장하고 CSO 스스로 규제하는 기준 및 수단을 시행하 고 감독하려는 현재의 노력을 지지한다. 7) 모든 개발 행위자가 자신들의 원조 및 개발 노력에 대해 책무성을 가질 의무가 있고, 또한 서로의 책 무성을 증진시킬 책임도 있음을 인정한다. 8) 모든 이해관계자가 투명성을 높이는 데 노력할 것을 권한다. 정보 규정 및 자원 규모에 관한 각각의 접근성과 CSO의 활동 유지와 CSO 및 관련된 사람들의 안전 및 치안을 위태롭게 하지 않는 방식에 대한 합의를 지키면서 투명성을 제고한다.

24 프레임워크

Montreal Declaration and Plan of Action We, the participants of the Post-‐2015 Civil Society Conference at the CIVICUS World Assembly, gathered in Montreal 4 September 2012, in the firm belief that it is possible to eradicate poverty, hunger, and injustice. Grounded in the fundamental principles of equality, social justice, and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, we commit to work together with peoples and governments worldwide to create the conditions and mechanisms that will guarantee the fulfillment of this vision of the “World We Want.” We continue to hold governments and the international community to account on the commitments of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). At the same time, now we need to define a more ambitious global framework for after 2015, when the MDGs expire. We currently face multiple and convergent crises of growing inequality, undemocratic governance, a broken global financial system, and climate change. We seize this opportunity to leverage citizen action and build momentum towards a fair, equal, and inclusive agenda for humanity, one that incorporates the voices of women, youth, and people living in poverty, and ensures democratic space for all people to demand and achieve fair and accountable governments. Our world has reached a tipping point. We stand on the edge of a precipice; time is running out. We need to organize and act decisively to assert the fundamental human rights of all people. We call for bold and concrete steps towards a coherent framework that links the post-‐2015 process with the outcomes of Rio+20, most notably the intergovernmental open working group on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We affirm the importance of connecting the environmental sustainability, human rights, and anti-‐poverty agendas, while emphasizing the necessity of our engagement in this political process. We demand a rightful place at the table for civil society, and further resolve that the multilateral process on the post-‐2015 development agenda must be open, inclusive, transparent, consultative, and take the aspirations of people most affected by poverty and climate change, as expressed by those people themselves, as a starting point. This process must be founded on principles of social justice, solidarity, human dignity, and freedom, and be free from all forms of discrimination, including on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, religion, and culture. We demand the meaningful inclusion and participation of all sectors of society, with special regard to socially excluded communities, at all stages of this process, including its negotiations and implementation. We call on civil society organizations, trade unions, women’s, peasants, indigenous, human rights, and social justice movements to come together to coordinate a global campaign that connects grassroots struggles with the arenas of privilege and power. We urge civil society globally to build a grassroots campaign that will determine the content of the demands and proposals we take forward to our partners in the United Nations system. We conclude by reaffirming our overarching vision and goal for the “World We Want” beyond 2015: the eradication of poverty, the reversal of growing inequality, and the fulfillment of environmental sustainability and human rights.