Most people probably weren’t paying attention to the Washington Post business page on Dec 25. (Myself, I was trying to corral two toddlers and navigate a sea of Legos and torn paper). But for people in poor countries who are trying to lead their societies out of poverty, Christmas day brought good news: USAID is changing the way it works to get closer to the people it’s trying to help.

Dy Yong keeps the books for the rice Bank Committee so that everybody can see how it run and maintained at the Rice cooperative in Takom village, Battambang. The rice store committee has many members and they introduce villagers to the principles of trading rice to give them security at a much reduced rate than the market offers. Photo by Jim Holmes/Oxfam.

Since Administrator Rajiv Shah came on board, USAID has been trying to rebuild itself so it can build stronger partnerships with poor countries and their people. It’s based in the reality of good development, which is that development isn’t something done by USAID—development is done by poor people and poor countries themselves. In order to be a better partner, USAID needs to get closer to poor people to know better what they actually need and want. That means having more USAID people talking and working directly with people in poor countries.

This isn’t a new idea; it’s called “partnership,” and the hard-working people at USAID have been trying to do it since the agency was created 50 years ago—with varying degrees of success. The problem is that budget cuts in the 90’s gutted the agency’s ability to do this well. Budget cutters defined “efficiency” as more dollars managed by fewer people, rather than judging the depth and effectiveness of USAID’s partnerships. As a result, things deteriorated to the point where USAID contracting officers were each managing five times the amount of money that federal guidelines said they should. By necessity, USAID’s business model was reduced to “shoveling money out the door” rather than getting to know countries, communities, leaders, and their needs.

Increasingly, to manage this, USAID starting relying on “intermediaries”; often well-meaning partners like big NGOs and contractors that could manage the money for them. US-based NGOs and contractors each have distinct roles and contributions to make to development. But in this case, the way they were used was both a substitute for USAID expanding its own knowledge and expertise, as well as an impediment to change leaders in poor countries being able to tell the US government what they really needed.

Administrator Shah is trying to change that. The Dec. 25 Washington Post article unveiled his effort to get USAID back to a better business model, by cutting out the middlemen and putting more emphasis on building relationships directly with the people who are making development happen in their own countries. These are exactly the kind of people that the United States wants on our side: not because of charity or because they necessarily like us, but because they want the same things we do: a world that can fight back against problems like poverty, injustice, and disease.

These reforms have a rather bureaucratic sounding name: “Implementation and Procurement Reform.” But what they mean in practice is that USAID is making an effort to get back on the ground to work more closely with the people it’s trying to help. That means better value for American taxpayers, more power for change leaders in poor countries, and ultimately better progress in the fight against poverty.

Ahead of the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in South Korea this week, we asked you to send messages of support to Secretary Clinton to make bold commitments on transparent and accountable aid. And as part of the ONE Act a Week, almost 100 of you responded! In this PDF you can read the messages that ONE members submitted.

In addition to sending your messages in a tweet to the State Department, I also personally delivered your messages to an official member of the US delegation in Busan, South Korea for the Forum.

Robin Matthewman, director of the Bureau for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs at the State Department thanked ONE members for their support and encouragement.

And on Wednesday at the Opening Ceremony we got proof that your messages were heard! Not only did Secretary Clinton deliver a bold speech on development and aid effectiveness to more than 3,000 international participants, but she also announced that the US would be joining the International Aid Transparency Initiative. This is a huge step in making US foreign assistance more transparent and a big win for more accountable, efficient aid.

Thanks for speaking up and letting your voice be heard. And keep an eye on the ONE blog for more news coming out of Busan this week.

For the glass half-full types, the conversation has been usefully broadened to consider issues that go far beyond aid and that involve new actors. Civil society had a seat at the table and the private sector was brought into the fold. For the glass half-empty types, the aid effectiveness gains that might have been achieved have been surrendered in the enthusiasm to broaden the conversation, or, perhaps, in the effort by some donors to avoid their aid effectiveness commitments.

ONE has been on the ground in Busan, pushing for greater transparency and accountability and a sharper focus on results. These issues – along with fragile states and engaging emerging powers – have been the primary issues discussed at Busan.

On transparency, there has been great progress. Firstly, the Outcome Document commits donors to making their aid transparent, in line with the International Aid Transparency Initiative. ONE has pushed hard on this, supporting the first-rate efforts of Publish What You Fund.  Secondly, with a number of donors including Canada and the USA announcing that they will sign up to IATI – with the USA’s move announced by Secretary Clinton – information about more than 75% of aid will now be made public.

On accountability, the outcome document emphasizes that governments in developing countries need to manage public resources in ways that are transparent and accountable, and that allow and enable parliaments and civil society organizations to hold governments accountable. It also emphasizes the importance of effective institutions, a welcome nod to the fact that aid and development effectiveness are political as well as technical matters. These encouraging words on accountability will need to be given life through initiatives such as the Open Government Partnership and the Global Initiative on Fiscal Transparency.

Finally, results was perhaps the single biggest focus of Busan with speaker after speaker emphasizing that aid and development cooperation must be about achieving results that will, in time, mean that aid is no longer necessary. The outcome document makes clear that results monitoring should be country-led, and that further capacity is needed to be developed for citizens in developing countries to monitor their own progress and hold governments to account, which will be implemented through a global Action Plan to enhance statistical capacity.

The greatest test of Busan however will actually begin now, in building out a post-Busan global monitoring architecture with clear measurable indicators and targets that is inclusive of all actors, and holds all participants to account. It’s too early to say whether Busan will be remembered as a success or a failure. Over the coming months and years ONE will be working hard to ensure that Busan is remembered not as the last pathetic whimper of the aid effectiveness agenda, but as the first glorious hurrah of a wider more inclusive global partnership for effective development cooperation.

The Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness isn’t even finished yet, but we can already log big wins for transparent and accountable aid. In Secretary Clinton’s keynote address at the forum in South Korea, she officially announced that the United States would be signing the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI), something that ONE has been pushing hard on in advance of Busan. As ONE’s Executive Director, Sheila Nix said:

“Secretary Clinton’s announcement that the United States will join the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) reinforces America’s leadership in making foreign assistance more transparent and accountable. Being open and clear about how the U.S. is spending foreign aid—where and on what—will help make aid more efficient and accountable to US taxpayers and will maximize resources to help those living on less than $1.25 lift themselves out of poverty.”

The US announcement followed on from another big announcement by Canada on Monday that they would also be joining IATI. The addition of these two major donors will bring the total number of IATI signatories to 26 and increase IATI’s coverage of aid to over 75 percent of global ODA flows.

This is great news for ONE members who supported the Make Aid Transparent campaign. On Wednesday at the forum the Executive Director of Publish What You Fund (PWYF), Karin Christiansen, presented the Make Aid Transparent petition during a high-level panel on transparency and accountability. Exactly 63,905 people signed the petition from more than 180 countries, underscoring global public support for aid transparency.

ONE’s Alan Hudson and Sara Messer present the Make Aid Transparent petition to UK Secretary of State for International Development Andrew Mitchell, along with Karin Christiansen of PWYF and partners.

But more and better information is useless if people can’t access or understand it to make aid more efficient and hold governments to account. In order to improve accessibility and make aid info more user-friendly, the Open Aid Partnership was officially launched during the High Level Forum. The Open Aid Partnership is an initiative started by the World Bank Institute and other partner countries to provide visual mappings of aid projects, allowing for better donor coordination and targeting of aid. It also provides the technology for citizens to give feedback on development projects through mobile texting and online submissions, allowing for real-time monitoring and accountability! ONE supports the Open Aid Partnership and calls on more countries to sign up and provide their aid data. For donors that are already signatory to IATI, this is the next step to put transparency into action and turn aid information into development results.

At the Fourth OECD High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, donors and developing countries work out the principles and commitments needed to eliminate poverty. As if that was not tough enough, the global financial crisis, natural disasters, increasing poverty and conflicts as well as the need to get China to step aboard shake up the negotiations.

For the first time, civil society organizations take part in the High Level Forum as equal negotiating parties. The BetterAid network unites more than 1.000 development organizations from civil society to work on development effectiveness. BetterAid has been challenging the aid effectiveness agenda since January 2007 and is leading many of the civil society activities in the lead up to the Forum.

At first sight, one could assume that Busan is simply about continuing discussions on the quality of aid and agreeing on the follow-up of the principles and action plan mapped out in Paris and Accra. Wrong. The Forum delves deep into the development paradigm: what is meant by development and how can it be made sustainable?

Belief in the virtuous nature of economic growth is practically unwavering, but there is little talk of how to divide its fruits in a fair way so that growth benefits above all those living in extreme poverty. Traditional donors are clearly –- and in part, justly -– nervous about rising economic powers such as China and India bustling about in Africa without a set of common rules to constrain them. It is not worthwhile for the EU to try and guarantee food security in a developing country by supporting the agricultural sector if at the same time China leases millions of hectares of land for its own purposes. Development efforts require coordination and coherence.

The values seen as crucial to development cooperation and foreign and security policy in general -– human rights and even democracy –- are under threat. Reluctant to negotiate, China has got many traditional donors on their knees. Statements from representatives of European states indicate that getting China on board overrides nearly everything else. It is hardly surprising that human rights, transparency and accountability issues are the main problems to tackle when drafting the Busan Outcome Document.

The core importance of the High Level Forum lies in the fact that it will determine positions and discussions for the next four years before the UN Millennium Program (link: http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/) concludes in 2015. Will we succeed in reconciling the conflicting interests of the different centers of power so that the international community is united in the fight to remove poverty and inequality?

While the deadline for the UN Millennium Development Goals, year 2015, draws closer, inequality and poverty are growing –- despite sustained economic growth over several years. The situation calls for political will and courage to commit to common values and actions that bring about lasting changes in the lives of the poorest people. It is important to get China on board, but we should not sacrifice our values. One of the four key asks of CSOs is to strengthen development effectiveness through practices based on human rights standards.

The Busan Outcome Document should reflect the values of its signatory states. Now is not the time for concessions.

The International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) is both a global voluntary initiative and a common standard for publishing aid information that aims to make it “easier to access, use and understand.” It was formed following the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action as a way to implement those commitments made by donors in Accra on aid transparency. Twenty-one donors covering more than 50 percent of overseas development assistance flows have signed on to IATI, and 22 partner countries have endorsed it. In order to achieve its goals — like helping governments in developing countries manage aid resources more effectively or allowing citizens in both donor and partner countries to better monitor aid spending and reduce corruption — it needs to encompass a much broader range of donors and aid flows, and be fully implemented.

Although the United States has made great strides in the last year on aid transparency — largely through the foreign assistance dashboard — it is still only an observer to IATI and not a full member. With the Busan High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness convening in just one week, the time is ripe for the US to solidify its commitment to aid transparency and demonstrate global leadership in this area. To make the case, we have developed a list of the top five reasons the US should join IATI:

5. Because its record on aid transparency is lacking. Let’s be honest, the US hasn’t measured up so well on transparency rankings and indicators in the past. Publish What You Fund recently released their pilot Aid Transparency Index, showing five of six US aid agencies to be poor or very poor at publishing their own aid information. PWYF recommended that the US agencies provide more and better aid information through the dashboard in line with the IATI standard. The Brookings-Center for Global Development QuODA assessment shows that the US is faring slightly more positively, but still ranking 12th out of 31 donors on the transparency and learning dimension. Joining and implementing IATI would improve the United States’ standing significantly.

4. Because the US needs to turn rhetoric into progress on aid transparency reforms. What the rankings above don’t show is that the US has made great strides this past year in improving the transparency of its aid information. Last year’s creation of the foreign assistance dashboard was a big step forward in creating an accessible repository of information on US foreign assistance. But getting US agencies to post their aid data has been slow, and for the past year only State and USAID’s Congressional Budget Justification information was available. In a welcome move, this week MCC became the first agency to publish their planning, obligation and spent data. In September President Obama made new commitments, as part of the Open Government Partnership, to direct all federal agencies that administer foreign assistance to provide timely and detailed information on budgets, disbursements, and project implementation in a format that is internationally comparable. Joining IATI would help to deliver on this important commitment while solidifying US pledges to improve the quality of its aid.

3. Because information is power. Knowing how much money the US is spending, where, and on what will allow decision makers to better plan for and manage our own spending on global development and will allow for better accountability to taxpayers. Aid information should ultimately be useful for partner countries planning their own domestic budgets as well. If developing countries don’t know how much aid they are receiving or where it is being spent, they cannot effectively plan spending from their own budget to target development objectives. By joining IATI, the US will be publishing information in line with an international standard that will allow its aid to be compared across the board with other donors, potentially leading to a higher degree of accountability and coordination.

2. Because resources are limited. In a time of dwindling budgets and tough cuts, improving the transparency of aid is essential for the efficient and effective use of resources. And aid transparency is a necessary first step in improving accountability and enabling effective spending. By comparing transparency scores on the Aid Transparency Index with the 3 other dimensions of aid quality on the QuODA assessment, Owen Barder has noted that transparency and aid effectiveness are strongly correlated. He finds that “well-governed and well-managed aid agencies are likely to be both more effective and more transparent.” Joining and implementing IATI will be a huge step in improving the accountability of US foreign assistance.

1. Because global leadership can convince others to adopt smart policy changes. The US continues to be the world’s largest bilateral donor, disbursing over $30 billion in official development assistance in 2010. If the US and other IATI observers, such as France and Canada stepped up to join IATI, the coverage of overseas development aid flows would increase to 86%. By joining the EU, UK, World Bank and other sizeable donors who have signed onto IATI, US leadership at the Busan High Level Forum and beyond could help persuade those countries still on the fence about making further strides on aid transparency.

Last week in Tanzania, nearly 100 civil society groups and 12 international organizations, including the International Budget Partnership, Greenpeace, ONE and many smaller organizations from across the globe, launched a global effort to make public budgets transparent, participatory and accountable. Budgets are the most critical tool that governments have to address problems like poverty, provide critical services like education and health care, and invest in their country’s future. When the political speeches end, it is how governments actually manage funds to meet their promises and priorities that matters.

The Global Movement for Budget Transparency, Accountability, and Participation envisions public finance systems that make all budget information easily accessible, provide meaningful opportunities for citizens and civil society to participate in budget decisions and oversight throughout the process, and include strong institutions to hold governments accountable for how they raise and spend the public’s money.

The timing of this effort capitalizes on a number of significant events that have built momentum to substantially improve how governments operate, including how they manage public funds to meet citizens’ needs and to address persistent challenges. The most dramatic of these events is the “Arab Spring,” which has created an unprecedented opportunity for democratic and responsive governments in Africa, and has also sent a wake-up call to oppressive regimes around the world, acting as a beacon of hope to their people. There are also important international, multi-stakeholder initiatives that have been launched in the last year to promote government that is open, responsive, and accountable. These include the Open Government Partnership and the Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency, both of which bring together governments, civil society and industry to promote transparency, increase civic participation, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.

Though these events and initiatives hold great promise, without an organized, skilled and active civil society movement that can connect the institutions involved with the priorities and needs of ordinary citizens, there is a danger that these opportunities will fall short of their potential. The organizations meeting in Tanzania aim to be the driving force behind this movement and signed a Declaration of Principles on behalf of “…citizens and civil society organizations from around the globe, united by the shared conviction that inclusive and open public budgets are critical to achieving a world in which all human beings enjoy their full human rights –- civil, political, social, economic, cultural and environmental.” Budget transparency, alongside efforts to make aid more transparent, can play an important role in enabling citizens to hold their governments to account.

At Busan, countries should make commitments to deliver and use aid in ways that promote transparent and accountable financing for development, and that focus clearly on results. This will put people and politics back in the picture, enabling citizens in both developing and developed countries to see what resources are available, how they are spent, and what results they achieve so that they can hold their governments to account.

On transparency, wealthy donor countries must commit to make aid transparent, publishing aid information in a timely, comprehensive and comparable manner, and in line with the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). In addition, developing country governments should commit to making budget information available and accessible to their citizens. As the International Budget Partnership puts it: “open budgets, transform lives”. And transparency should be promoted in relation to other development resources, including natural resource revenues.

On accountability, participants at Busan should promote open and inclusive decision-making in developing countries, not only on aid management but on development policies more broadly. Donors should commit to provide the support that key accountability institutions such as parliaments and audit institutions need to hold governments to account. And donors and developing countries should – alongside ensuring that civil society can operate and organize safely and effectively – commit to do what is needed to help citizens use information to demand accountability.

Across all of their discussions on aid and development effectiveness, participants at Busan must focus on results and measuring development outcomes. Without good information about results, there can be little learning or accountability. Investments in statistical capacity and results monitoring in development countries must be stepped up so citizens in those countries can measure their own progress towards achieving national and international goals. And country-led monitoring processes in developing countries should be complemented by a global monitoring framework.

By making clear and monitorable commitments on transparency (including IATI), accountability and results, Busan can put people and politics back in the picture, make aid more effective and help to ensure that all development resources – aid and beyond – are used effectively in the fight against poverty.

Greater financial investments are crucial to helping countries increase momentum and boost progress in the four years left to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)—but without mechanisms in place to make sure that those resources are properly targeted, delivered, and tracked, we cannot ensure that the investments are reaching those that need it most and are actually achieving development outcomes. So we have to be just as concerned with the quality of investments made as we are with the quantity of investments made, even more so in a time of constrained budgets and scrutiny.

Governments know this. That’s why in 2005 a group of donors and developing countries came together and signed the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, committing to pursue a set of principles focused on improving developing country ownership over development priorities; aligning resources with these priorities; coordinating efforts among donors; focusing on development results; and holding each other to account. In addition, the countries agreed on a set of targets to achieve in these areas by 2010.

Fast forward to today and the majority of those targets remain unmet. Developing countries have made great strides on their side, but wealthy donor countries have made little progress in meeting their promises. Thus it is with a sense of renewed urgency and even greater resolve that we look forward to the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF-IV) kicking off in Busan, South Korea later this month. With more than 2500 participants—from government ministers in donor and developing countries to civil society and private sector representatives—the stakes are high, but the potential for true change is even greater. While participants take stock of progress made on aid effectiveness commitments from Paris and Accra in 2005 and 2008, the true test will come in how countries and partners tackle key challenges to development effectiveness and commit to concrete action moving forward.

It’s not just about aid; other resources such as private investment, remittances, private philanthropy, natural resource revenues, and domestic resources all play a huge role in development outcomes in poor countries, so it’s just as critical that those resources are well coordinated and well managed to focus on development results. In order to go beyond aid effectiveness and to incorporate a broad range of international partners and the spectrum of development resources, we believe at ONE that key commitments around transparency, accountability, and results are necessary to put developing countries—governments, citizens, civil society and the private sector—in the driving seat.

In the next few weeks leading up to HLF-IV, we will be working internationally with ONE voice to ensure that discussions at Busan result in clear and monitorable commitments on transparency, accountability and results. We are also working to make sure that broadening the conversation to include more actors and issues beyond aid, is not at the expense of clear and monitorable commitments on aid effectiveness, and that previous commitments continue to be monitored. You can follow our efforts and updates on the ONE blog and help us keep the pressure on governments as we go into Busan!

At a recent Congressional hearing, chaired by Congressman Chris Smith (NJ-4), officials said that despite difficulties with initial misconceptions, AFRICOM serves a vital role in security and aid delivery in Africa. The House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights held the hearing, with testimony from the following witnesses:

Established in 2008, AFRICOM, an acronym for the US Africa Command, is one of the Department of Defense’s six regional military commands. AFRICOM carries out US strategic interests in Africa. This includes partnering with local militaries to provide training, working to prevent terrorism and offering support to agencies like the State Department and the USAID in Africa.

Committee members and witnesses concurred that AFRICOM’s mission was poorly communicated at the outset, resulting in the misconception that the US was militarizing foreign aid. AFRICOM’s stated mission is to “[conduct] sustained security engagement… as directed to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of US foreign policy.”

The witnesses saw AFRICOM as a vast improvement from formerly disjointed security efforts in Africa. Amb. Yamamoto said, “AFRICOM’s role is a paradigm shift,” noting that “cooperation between AFRICOM and our African partners is at an all time high.” The military’s logistical capabilities have been helpful in providing assistance during emergencies, Ms. Cromer added, emphasizing that stability is crucial to improving life for the impoverished and sustaining economic growth. Ms. Huddleston agreed, saying that AFRICOM provides long-needed security.

Regarding the current crisis in the Horn of Africa, Amb. Yamamoto suggested that AFRICOM could improve methods of addressing such problems with long-term prevention.

Three years since a debut that Rep. Payne called “poorly conceived,” Amb. Yamamoto, Ms. Huddleston and Ms. Cromer portrayed AFRICOM as a key contributor to progress in African development. It also plays a crucial role in the worldwide effort to combat terrorism by community involvement and by fostering opportunities. Ms. Cromer summed up the importance of stability and foreign assistance by saying, “Today’s world is more interconnected and complex than ever. Instability, poverty, and disease quickly travel across oceans and borders. Problems abroad all too quickly become problems at home, while a peaceful, healthy, and prosperous Africa benefits us all.”

Read more about AFRICOM here.