The Accra HLF: good news for aid effectiveness, or a victory for mediocrity?

By Bill Morton

 

The first week of September 2009 was a particularly busy one for Accra, Ghana’s bustling capital and home to over 2 million inhabitants. It played host to the biggest ever international meeting devoted entirely to the subject of aid: the 3^rd High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness.

 

For government aid agencies, international institutions, and civil society organizations, the HLF represented an important “moment” in ongoing attempts to make aid more effective. Expectations were high: would the meeting deliver the ambitious agenda for change called on by some, and go well beyond the commitments made in the 2005 “Paris Declaration” that was agreed on at the previous HLF? Or would the less progressive actors take advantage of the meeting’s agreement on a “consensus” outcome, and manufacture a result amounting to little more than tinkering at the edges of reform?

 

Civil society groups interested in these issues converged on Accra in unprecedented numbers. Largely excluded from previous official aid processes and agreements, they were determined that this time would be different. They held several meetings prior to the HLF to consider aid issues in detail, and to ensure their messages were carried to the main event. Discussion at these meetings was always lively and frequently provocative. On occasions, passions overflowed into anger. This was hardly surprising: there are 1.4 billion people currently living in poverty, and the vexed question of who benefits from aid affects the livelihoods of many of them.

 

At the International Women’s Forum, for instance, grassroots women’s groups questioned whether the HLF would make a difference to women in Darfur. Would it bring security, more resources for fighting HIV/AIDS, and access to clean water? After much debate, the Forum agreed on a joint statement summarizing its position. Tellingly, the statement suggested that the ultimate test of whether aid is effective is not whether developing countries manage their aid funds better, or whether donors coordinate their actions. Effective aid, the meeting said, should lead to the elimination of poverty, and to gender equality, human rights and environmental sustainability.

 

The Civil Society Parallel Forum endorsed the Women’s Forum declaration, and for two days carried out its own detailed discussions. Attended by over five hundred people from 325 civil society organizations from 88 countries, the meeting examined the role of civil society organizations (CSOs) as development actors in their own right. It underlined that international and national efforts to advance aid effectiveness will fail unless CSOs are central actors in the process.

 

The Parallel Forum gave particular attention to the final draft of the “Accra Agenda for Action”, the Paris Declaration addendum that would be finalized at the HLF. Overall, participants were highly critical of the AAA. Like the Women’s Forum, they agreed on a joint statement summarizing their concerns. The statement includes a number of “minimum” demands: the definition of “ownership” must be more inclusive, tied aid must be ended, and much greater efforts must be made on reforming conditionality. Most importantly, the statement highlights that aid is only one factor – and often not the most important – in advancing development. In fact, developing countries and their people share a vision of a world where aid is no longer needed. Their primary concern is for justice: in the areas of trade, climate change, south-north resource flows, debt, and gender equality, as well as in relation to aid.  

 

CSO representatives presented their statement at the High Level Forum, which was attended by Ministers from developing and developed country governments, along with over 900 other officials from governments and development institutions. Against this number, a mere 80 civil society representatives were allowed to attend. Incredibly, however, this was a vast improvement on the previous HLF, when only 14 CSOs witnessed the signing of the Paris Declaration. In fact, many agree that the process of the HLF – in particular its inclusion of a wider range of stakeholders, such as parliamentarians and CSOs – represents an important step forward. It certainly stands in stark contrast to traditional processes for international agreements on aid, most of which take place within the exclusive confines of the OECD.

 

No matter how good or bad the process, it is the outcome from the HLF – the Accra Agenda for Action – that really matters. It is this that will determine international efforts on aid effectiveness in the lead up to the next HLF in 2011. In some respects, the news is good: the AAA includes important additions to the Paris Declaration. It recognizes, once and presumably for all, that aid effectiveness is not just a matter for governments. It states that developing country governments will work more closely with parliaments and local authorities, and that all actors will deepen their engagement with CSOs. This is a major win for CSOs, who have worked hard over the last two years to ensure their centrality to the aid effectiveness process.

 

Equally importantly, the AAA also acknowledges the importance of South-South cooperation. This recognizes the key role now played by the so-called “new donors”, such as China, Brazil, India and South Africa, and the opportunities they bring for aid-recipient countries. The AAA includes a strong statement on the principles that South-South cooperation aims to observe, including the importance of non-interference, and respect for independence, sovereignty and cultural diversity. North – South cooperation would do well to also respect these principles.

 

Overall, however, the final AAA can only be seen as a disappointment. This is partly because it is a negotiated agreement, arrived at by consensus, and accommodating the positions of the least progressive, but most powerful actors (such as the USA, Japan and the World Bank). The final, consensus-based AAA replaces earlier, more ambitious versions (one of which, for instance, stated unequivocally that “donors will not impose conditions”). The result is a victory for the lowest common denominator, rather than for real change. There is little improvement in areas that are of great concern to developing country governments and their citizens, including tied aid, technical cooperation, and aid predictability. The AAA also dashes hopes that donor countries would finally live up to the rhetoric of the Paris Declaration, and genuinely allow developing countries to take ownership of their development.

 

And so, where to from here? Given the AAA’s shortcomings, it is hard to be optimistic about prospects for the next HLF. But perhaps there are other, more encouraging signs for the future. South-South cooperation is opening up new opportunities for supporting development. The more progressive donor countries are ignoring their recalcitrant peers, and choosing to go it alone in pioneering new approaches. Some developing country governments, with growing financial reserves and confidence, are more strongly controlling the terms under which they are prepared to accept aid. And there is increasing agreement that you cannot fix aid effectiveness without fixing the development system. This may lead to a long overdue break with traditional, donor-dominated mechanisms for determining international aid policy (such as the OECD) – and the emergence of new structures, where developing countries have proper representation, and a fair share in decision making.

 

Links

 

Official site of the Accra HLF, including the Accra Agenda for Action

betteraid.org  Civil society viewpoints on the Accra Agenda for Action

Advisory Group on Civil Society and Aid Effectiveness: including Synthesis of Findings and Reccommendations

Reforming Aid and Development Cooperation: Accra, Doha and beyond (North-South Institute Policy Note)

South Centre critiques of aid effectiveness and the AAA