Aid Effectiveness

European leaders must remember their promises to the world’s poor when negotiating the globe’s second biggest aid budget

Dec 8th, 2011 3:41 PM UTC
By Johanna Stratmann

Andris Piebalgs, European Commissioner for Development, presented today his detailed proposals on the future EU development spending to the European Parliament. In his presentation to Members of the Development Committee, he laid out his spending plans worth €57 billion for the EU’s Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) within the 2014-2020 Budget and the 11^th European Development Fund. “In this budget, our main priority of meeting the Millennium Development Goals must be pursued, and the EU remains committed to spend 0.7% of its GNI on development by 2015”, Piebalgs stated.

ONE welcomes the European Commission proposals which put fighting poverty at the heart of plans for all of the EU’s external action, and calls on the European Parliament and Member States to keep their promises to the world’s poor in their upcoming negotiations on the proposals at hand.

Our Acting Brussels Director Alexander Woollcombe explains why 2012 will be such an important year to fight for the European aid budget:

“With one third of the EU Member States saying they want to freeze the overall budget for 2014-2020 at current levels, negotiations will no doubt be fraught, particularly in light of the current economic difficulties. But it is crucial that spending on the world’s poorest is prioritised. EU aid has saved millions of lives in poor countries, but there is still much more to be done. With many European countries off-track in keeping the promises they have made to developing countries, and just four years to go until the deadline for the Millennium Development Goals, now would be the worst time for the EU to cut back on the support that saves countless lives and helps those most in need.”

After the United States, the European Commission manages the second biggest aid budget globally and gives out grants worth €10 billion per year to partner governments, civil society and organisations including the Global Fund against HIV, Malaria and Tuberculosis.

In the period 2004-2009, thanks to the EU aid budget:

• More than 9 million pupils have enrolled in primary education
• More than 720,000 primary school teachers have been trained
• More than 85,000 new female students have been enrolled in secondary education
• More than five million children have been vaccinated against measles
• More than four million births were attended by health personnel
• More than 5,000 health centres and facilities have been built or renewed
• 750,000 people with HIV have received anti-retroviral combination therapy
• 7.7 million people have been given insecticide-treated nets
• More than 31 million people have been connected to drinking water and 9 million to sanitation facilities
• 36,000 km of roads have been constructed or maintained

The ONE team across Europe will be working hard in the coming months to ensure that our leaders will keep their promises to help those most in need. We’ll keep you updated as we enter into the hot phase of budget negotiations in 2012!

Beyond aid to open development

Dec 7th, 2011 1:37 PM UTC
By Alan Hudson

I came away from Busan feeling a bit queasy. Not because of the week-long jet lag and lack of sleep, or because Busan has been desperately disappointing for aid effectiveness. It has not, although it remains to be seen whether it will be remembered as the last whimper of the aid effectiveness agenda or the first hurrah of a global partnership for effective development cooperation.

Neither is my queasiness about donors not being held to account for their failure to meet previous commitments, nor about the fact that the aid effectiveness agenda remains somewhat poorly linked to evidence about development outcomes. Nor is it about the fact that there’s little honest discussion of the risks that are involved when investing in development, particularly in places with challenging governance environments. The queasiness comes from the fact that there remains a sense that “we” -– aid industry insiders, with money and power -– know best; as if having money and power necessarily means that one has relevant expertise. However, an antidote to my queasiness may be at hand.

Discussions at Busan briefly highlighted the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and its role in pushing forward greater transparency and accountability among both developed and developing countries. At a joint Busan event with Tony Blair’s Africa Governance Initiative, USAID played the opening video from the OGP event in September. By making the link between OGP and the aid effectiveness agenda -– a link noted by Owen Barder, too -– USAID made clear that making development cooperation more effective is not just about providing better services and vaccinating more children, but is also about providing people in developing countries with the information that they need to make good choices and to hold their governments to account.

So, while I left Busan feeling queasy, I also have a sense of optimism. Beyond aid, through open governance, there is the promise of open development -– a democratic development where people, not “experts,” have the power. As Rakesh Rajani puts it, “The purpose of development should not be to create and apply expert solutions, but rather to help enrich the conditions in which people can do more of what they already do well — by making it easier for people to get, compare and share information; to learn from each other and outsiders about how they have made things work; to search, experiment with and craft solutions; and to team up to get things done” (World Bank, Open Development report, September 2011).

Success – down to you

Dec 6th, 2011 3:11 PM UTC
By Stuart McWilliam

I’m really pleased to share some good news: you’ve contributed to another successful campaign! Thanks to pressure from you and 65,000 others who signed our transparency petition, governments have taken a giant step forward toward making sure aid money has the greatest possible impact on reducing poverty. This means that in poor countries around the world aid spending will help more lives be saved, more kids get the chance to go to school, and more families lift themselves out of grinding poverty.

Together with our friends at Publish What You Fund, ONE presented a petition to governments meeting in South Korea last week demanding that they publish the details of the aid money they donate. And the pressure worked. Many donor governments and institutions published information about their aid spending while others, including the world’s largest donor, the United States, signed up to an international agreement committing to do so.

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 Publish What You Fund and other partners.

This is a vital development. Aid donors will be able to coordinate with each other, reducing waste and overlap. Developing country governments and organisations delivering projects on the ground will be able to plan better, because they will know how much money they are receiving, for what projects and for how long. What’s more, citizens in these countries will be able to hold their governments to account because they will know what results the government is supposed to be achieving with the money it receives.

We already know that aid, when spent properly, delivers amazing results. For example, over the last decade, 46.5 million more African children have been able to go to school, and the number of people receiving life-saving treatment for AIDS grew from 100,000 to 6.6 million. Thanks to pressure from you the agreements made last week now mean that aid money has the potential to deliver even greater results over the coming years.

Busan: A Bang or a Whimper?

Dec 2nd, 2011 11:17 AM UTC
By Alan Hudson

The Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness drew to a close on 1 December, with the Korean hosts able to celebrate the delivery of a new global partnership on effective development cooperation. Emerging powers including China and India have endorsed the document, a document that makes clear in its second paragraph that commitments that apply to traditional aid differ from those that apply to south-south cooperation, and that contains few clear and concrete commitments on making aid more effective.

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.

A Clear Win for Transparent Development

Dec 1st, 2011 12:56 PM UTC
By Sara Messer

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 US 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 US 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% 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. 63,905 people signed the petition from over 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.

Transparency will help the aid debate grow up, and help aid grow old and die

Nov 29th, 2011 12:01 AM UTC
By Jamie Drummond

A life and death debate will rage this week over the crucial – but excruciatingly technical – issue of aid effectiveness. This issue is too important for the public not to know what’s at stake, because after all it’s how their money is being used to save lives that is being discussed. But beyond the policy details, the politics of aid requires some attention too.

Some critics of aid peddle the myths that aid accounts for both a vast portion of national budgets (untrue) and that it achieves nothing (also untrue). In fact, it averages around 1% of national budgets and saves millions of lives a year. For example, vaccines alone have saved at least 5.4m lives over the last decade. But the critiques survive and thrive in part because there’s a weakness at the heart of the pro-aid arguments. This squishiness is largely the product of insufficient transparency.

So the central challenge, and the central opportunity, is around the need for a radical aid transparency agenda. Transparency is the vaccine against corruption and waste, and new technology enables us to dig deeper into aid accounts in real time, and follow national budgets all the way from the top level decisions right the way through to how each penny cent or shilling is delivered.

But conventional wisdom says the aid community should not embrace transparency too much because it reveals problems which its critics will shout about from the rooftops.  It also says that governments in developing countries don’t like too much transparency either. Put these factors together and the aid world gets downright shy and sheepish. Both fears may have some validity, but this logic needs to be turned on its head.

Two trends define our time: on the one hand, the demands for transparency and accountability emanating from the Arab street; and on the other, the fears over deficits and spending cuts. By doing more to embrace transparency and accountability, the aid community will make a much better case for why it should be sustained and increased, not cut.

So here’s a three part plan to improve the policy and politics around aid:

First, all aid budgets must be made transparent and as soon as possible.  To be crystal clear, I don’t mean simply reporting top-line spending each year.  That’s just not good enough.  We need to see real information about specific projects and programmes – including what’s been spent, who received it, what impact it has had, and what’s in the pipeline.

Secondly, all national budgets, including payments from extractive companies, should be transparent all the way through. It’s a bit of a scandal that all of this isn’t happening already. That’s a first order priority. If it doesn’t happen soon progressive nations should stop aid to developing country governments that hide or obscure their budgets from their people. But all this data needs to be crunched for citizens so that they can really hold their leaders accountable. It’s no good just rocketing reams of statistics into the ether if there isn’t the capacity to analyse and digest it.  That’s why we also need much more investment in think tanks, universities, and civil society groups in developing countries to play this critical role.  And we need to make the information accessible to the poorest people in the street or village – those citizens in whose name we busy ourselves. To achieve this, we need a major new catalytic fund to make dry aid and budget statistics come alive in ways that drive action and accountability. In many places, this also will require stepping up smart aid investments in developing country governments’ ability to better collect and deliver data.   For those that demonstrate an unwavering commitment to openness and accountability, this is something that we should do with vigour and haste.

Thirdly, we need those players in the debate about aid to grow up and acknowledge the reality of risk. Sometimes the best uses of aid are the most risky – like when it is directed to projects in fragile states or seed investment for innovative pilot programmes. While we should design programs to minimise risk, this must be balanced with the need to design them to maximise returns for the poorest.  Let me explain by analogy:  ONE’s board is a colourful cast with characters like John Doerr, one of Silicon Valley’s most distinguished venture capitalists. Many of his investments don’t deliver.  He’s proud of this because these investments were part of a broader portfolio strategy that wasn’t frightened of risk, but instead embraced it.  Each decision is based upon extensive due diligence, the establishment of appropriate governance controls, and a careful analysis of upside and downside potential.  With the occasional losers, John has also made calculated investments in fabulously successful start-ups like Google.  These are the ones that have changed the world.  If development aid is to support innovative solutions for our common future, it needs to constantly test new and different approaches. In other words, it needs to be highly entrepreneurial.  That shouldn’t make us scared.  It should make us bold.  And, while we should have zero tolerance of fraud and abuse, we will have to admit that sometimes things will go awry, with lacklustre results or even some of the money going missing. But over time, you learn lessons, scale up what works, and continuously search for solutions for under-performing approaches.  If the people who are in charge of aid budgets are no longer scared of being open, then ultimately they can collectively minimize the amount that misses the target over time because enhanced transparency improves the feedback loops which improve policy outcomes.

Smart aid investments have delivered fantastic returns in the last decade, and this should be grounds for the aid industry to be more confident and open about admitting mistakes. Fear of admitting failures makes the great stories and statistics of success, when they are told, appear like mere PR. The sooner we embrace this radical transparency agenda, the sooner the politics around aid can grow up, the sooner the policy can improve to such a point that the poorest really will be able to drive and determine their own fate with dignity, and the sooner developing countries will be able to graduate from aid altogether.

This article first appeared on the Huffington Post UK website.

Europeans give thumbs up to increasing EU development aid

Nov 24th, 2011 5:14 PM UTC
By Isabelle De Lichtervelde

Despite the current economic turmoil, 84% of European citizens “strongly support” development aid to help people in developing countries out of poverty, according to a Eurobarometer poll launched yesterday. 62% of those asked were in favour increasing aid to at least 0.7% of Gross National Income by 2015, as European leaders have promised.

Currently, many European countries are off track on this commitment, along with the promise to double aid to Africa by 2010 – the region to which 70% of respondents felt to be the part of the world most in need of increased support.

As European leaders start negotiating the next 7-year EU budget, of which €51 billion is proposed to be spent on development aid, ONE will be working hard to ensure Europeans’ voices are heard and promises to help those most in need are kept.

26,856 Europeans of the age 15 and above were asked 10 questions on aid and development cooperation in September 2011 in face-to-face interviews, about 1000 face-to-face interviews per country. Interestingly among all respondents young people were the most supportive of keeping the 0.7% commitment with 9 out of 10 believing it is important to help the world’s poor.

Ahead of the High-level Forum on Aid Effectiveness those questioned thought the two best ways to improve effectiveness of EU aid would be common policies at EU level and more transparency.

For more information on the Eurobarometer poll click here.

This is not the moment to give up on aid, but to believe in it – Tony Blair

Nov 24th, 2011 10:24 AM UTC
By Claire Hazelgrove

Next week will be the first time in years we see former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair taking to the international stage and attending a high level forum with world leaders. The Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, South Korea will review the progress made on former commitments to aid effectiveness, and showcase commitments that set a new agenda for development. Certainly one to watch.

Last week, ONE spoke to Tony Blair about his message to leaders as he prepares to attend the forum in Busan.  We also took the opportunity to talk to him about some of the issues we’ve been calling for change on at ONE, and about how his Africa Governance Initiative plays a part in this.

So, why is he attending the Busan conference on aid effectiveness, and how can it be made a success?

“I think the most important thing is to show people this is a developing debate around an area where, believe it or not, things can change. I mean I happen to think with Africa, I think Africa is a continent on the move.”

Blair believes it vital that we show the progress made in Africa, and give people “a sense of the potential,” as many African countries “have come a long way in the past decade partly as a result of imaginative development policy.” He also points to the momentum that he hopes will be seen at Busan with so many leaders attending, including Hillary Clinton.

He also levelled a challenge at them, sending his message ahead of the conference: “We’re about to enter a whole new decade of really exciting innovation and development in the aid space. And so this is not the moment to give up on it but to believe in it.”

With 10 years of experience of international summits as UK Prime Minister, we asked how, following on from the recent meeting of world leaders in Cannes, the G20 should follow through on their warm words and break the cycle of famine by delivering long-term agricultural solutions , and how we at ONE, with over 400,000 voices, can help hold them to account for their promises.

Blair argues that there are two things we all need to do. The first is to challenge critics and “show people that aid really does work because the concept of aid being basically a waste of money is just not right.” His second challenge is for people in the aid community to show that they are also evolving their policies towards aid and aren’t “just stuck in the past. On the contrary there’s a lot of innovation, a lot of exciting things happening.”

But he also emphasises that a big part of convincing political leaders comes down to activists like us getting behind these issues, and that ONE members should carry on putting pressure on them “to show them that they would have support if they do the right thing.” And this is why our campaign on agriculture and food security is carrying on next year – to get real commitments to ending famine, and for all of the people who do not get enough food each day.

ONE’s next global campaign is being launched in the run up to World AIDS Day (December 1st ). We’re campaigning for the beginning of the end of AIDS by 2015. There is still a way to go but we know great results are possible.  10 years ago, just 100,000 people had access to lifesaving antiretroviral drugs to counter AIDS, and now 6.6 million people are able to take them. “Right, that’s amazing. I think on that, it’s a little bit like with the malaria campaign, you can really say it’s not true it’s all hopeless. Because otherwise what happens is that people get to the point with a lot of these campaigns where they think ‘well you know, they’re always asking me for money and they’re always telling me it’s all very difficult.’ There you’ve got a great story to tell.”

What about aiming to see 15 million people onto antiretroviral drugs, and ending mother to child transmission of the virus, both by 2015? “It can be done if people have the will to do it. And you can see that from what’s been done in the last 10 years.” As Hillary Clinton recently said, we really could be welcoming in an ‘AIDS free generation’.

While much has been achieved in Africa, in part thanks to aid coupled with strong African leadership, 400 million people still live in extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa alone. The work isn’t complete. But with government cutbacks, and the Eurozone crisis, we’re hearing more voices saying we should be cutting back on aid too. What’s the former Prime Minister’s take on this, as someone with the rare experience of having felt some of the pressures that face our current government?

“This area of policy, uniquely in my experience of politics, is one of which you can literally measure in lives the difference you can make for the better. And, I think when people talk about the aid budget, they might sort of say ‘well I’ve got all these problems at home, do I care if it’s cut or not?’ but I think when you tell them what the money is spent on… you get their support”.

He went on to talk proudly of the UK Department for International Development (DFID)’s work ; “And you know after all DFID, for example, in our case is now a very, very effective development agency, perhaps the most effective of government departments in the world. You know I see round the world projects they do they really make a difference.”

Interestingly, when it comes to development, Blair believes that this is unlike talking to people about other issue areas “in a curious way, for once you get their support in particular more than you do in general.” By focusing on how many lives could be saved, how many communities stabilised, and how, Blair is confident that as a focused movement against extreme poverty we can bring others with us.

After leaving office, Tony Blair could have chosen any number of paths. But by setting up and being Patron of the (now 4-year-old) Tony Blair Africa Governance Initiative, Blair signalled that development was and remains one of the most important areas to him. But why this route; why Africa?

“When I’m seeing these African leaders struggle with their challenges… often the single most difficult thing for them is to get anything done.”

But, seeing the potential for change, Blair notes that “if they can get say, basic infrastructure done – energy, electricity, roads – if they can put the right framework in place to attract the right type of transparent investment into their country, they can probably make a go of it.“

African leaders often “pull a lever, nothing happens. And so that’s why we focus on this, because what I learnt when I was in government is that aid is not enough. I didn’t learn that aid was a bad thing; I just learned it wasn’t enough. And that, for these countries, in the end they need to govern themselves, but to govern themselves they need to show that normal politics, in the sense of getting things done, can deliver for people.”

While there are lots of challenges ahead, Blair’s message throughout this interview was that when you see just how much has been achieved through effective aid, now is absolutely not the time to cut back, but to believe in it, and do what we can to convince world leaders to keep changing lives, and continue our fight to end extreme poverty.

We’re certainly up for that challenge. Are you?

Corruption in Context

Nov 22nd, 2011 2:57 PM UTC
By Joseph Powell

Today sees the publication of the first reports from the UK’s new Independent Commission on Aid Impact (ICAI). ICAI was set up to ensure that UK aid maximises effectiveness and value for money, and to provide an independent counter-balance to the Department for International Development’s own internal reporting systems. It counts ONE Africa Policy Advisory Board member John Githongo as one of its four commissioners.

Of their four reports it is inevitably the one focused on corruption that has picked up the most media coverage. The rising proportion of UK aid being spent in fragile and conflict states presents an obvious challenge to DFID officials: how to operate effectively in higher risk environments? That is not a task to be taken lightly, but it would be a mistake for the UK to only spend aid in benign governance environments.

The UK has made strides on designing aid delivery mechanisms that are appropriate to different parts of the world. As the ICAI report on corruption points out, in Nigeria – a country where the risks of corruption are deemed to be high – only 0.04% of DFID money is in the form of government budget support, while the figure is 72.4% in Zambia. There is also now a greater focus on transparency over DFID spending and the UK has been a prominent supporter of the International Aid Transparency Initiative which seeks to create a common reporting standard for all donors – making it easier for citizens to see what money is coming into their country and where it is being spent. In addition, DFID recommends that in countries where budget support is used around 5% of the value of that aid is used to strengthen domestic accountability – i.e. to help local civil society organisations to hold their government accountable for money spent. Indeed ICAI makes strong additional recommendations on how DFID can assist partner countries fight corruption through improved transparency and accountability mechanisms.

Of course fighting corruption in many of the countries where UK aid is spent is not just the responsibility of DFID. The new Bribery Act lays out a zero tolerance framework for UK companies operating abroad. The UK has also been at the forefront of European countries supporting new transparency legislation that will require all listed and large unlisted oil, gas, mining and forestry companies to publish the payments made to governments on a project-by-project basis.

Clearly badly spent aid money should not be tolerated but it is also inaccurate to suggest that corruption can be eradicated overnight (we struggle enough in this country), or that inefficiency and human error can be prevented. Nevertheless, ICAI’s report makes clear that DFID has a key role to play in building up the structures and local systems that in the long-run will help transform fragile and conflict states prone to corruption into places that prioritise citizens’ development needs.

World’s biggest donor gears up for aid effectiveness summit

Nov 18th, 2011 3:14 PM UTC
By Tamira Gunzburg

At the end of this month, South Korea will be hosting the next summit on aid effectiveness. This is the fourth in a series of high-level forums where donors get together to discuss how they can make development aid more effective.

This time round, in Busan, participants will not only need to look into fulfilling and deepening those commitments on aid, but also address broader issues. For example, many emerging economies are now also engaged in development assistance, and there is a recognition that development isn’t only about aid – it is also about other forms of revenues such as remittances and private sector investment.

The European Union, as the world’s largest donor, has been preparing for the High-Level Forum in Busan. On Monday the 14^th of November, the European Foreign Affairs Development Council endorsed the common EU position. In this position, the EU members set out, among other things, to be inclusive of different development actors, agree on a single outcome document for the summit, and focus on results and accountability, ownership, transparency and reduced fragmentation.

Aside from this wishlist for the outcome of the Busan summit, the EU development ministers also outlined several initiatives they will take to put their own house in order. For instance, the EU wants to establish a special “EU Transparency Guarantee”, and start implementing joint programming to reduce the fragmentation of aid among EU member states.

However, we would like to see stronger language still from the EU. In the desire to be inclusive of new donors, it is tempting for Europe to dilute its previous strong commitments some of the new players aren’t so keen on, for example the principle of aid transparency. You can help us call on all the negotiating parties to make aid more transparent by signing this petition.

At ONE, we want to see countries making commitments to deliver and use aid in ways that promote transparent and accountable financing for development, and that focus clearly on results. This will enable 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 and ensure that all development resources – aid and beyond – are spent effectively in the fight against global poverty.

Stay tuned into our blog to follow the negotiations and activities at Busan from 29 November to 1 December!