Policy News

Aid and Beyond: Transparency, accountability and results

Nov 9th, 2011 10:10 AM UTC
By Alan Hudson

As negotiations heat up ahead of the Fourth High Level Forum on aid effectiveness (HLF-IV), many countries are keen to move beyond a narrow aid effectiveness agenda, bringing in a broader range of actors and issues in recognition of the changing development landscape. Emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil are becoming ever more important. The demand for Africa’s oil and mineral resources is growing, providing many African countries with new revenue streams. Traditional donors’ aid budgets are under pressure. And people are taking to the streets and the twitter-verse to demand more transparent and accountable governance, from north Africa to north America and beyond. However, broadening the conversation to include more actors and issues beyond aid, must not and need not be at the expense of clear, measurable and time-bound commitments on aid effectiveness.

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.

A Better Way to Better Aid: The Road to Busan

Nov 9th, 2011 10:08 AM UTC
By Sara Messer

At ONE we spend a lot of time and effort making sure that citizens in developing countries get the resources they need to fight extreme poverty and preventable disease. We hold wealthy governments to account for commitments they made to increase development assistance, and we fight cuts to foreign aid—like in the US where it is less than 1% of the budget! But we’re not just about the money.

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!

G20 endorses initiative to connect people, projects, and capital in Africa

Nov 4th, 2011 5:16 PM UTC
By Tom Wallace

Africa suffers from an infrastructure deficit that greatly limits growth and poverty reduction on the continent.  70% of the population do not have access to electricity and many rural communities lack road to access to markets or health facilities.  In some areas a lack of infrastructure reduces economic output by as much as 40%.

However both government and private investors often find it difficult to find African infrastructure projects to invest in.  This isn’t because of a lack of projects, but rather a lack of information being made available to investors.  As a result potential investors find it very hard, time consuming, and at times, expensive to find information on projects and other potential investors.  This impedes investment even though new projects often yield attractive rates of return.  The result of this is that African people continue to suffer from this lack of infrastructure.

Today however at the G20 summit in France world leads took steps to address this problem by endorsing the establishment of the Sokoni African Infrastructure Marketplace.   This African Development Bank and the Zanbato Group Sokoni proposal (‘Sokoni’ is Swahili for ‘marketplace’) should help overcome many of the challenges investors face by creating a single platform for information on a large number of African infrastructure initiatives. Governments and investors will be able to come to find transparent information and link up efficiently with each other.  Using ICT and technology Sokoni will help enhance efficiency, transparency, and connectivity in the market and help to mobilize increased resources from Africa and abroad for badly needed infrastructure projects.

ONE welcomes this initiative and the support of the G20 world leaders for it.  You can find out more about Sonoki from its website http://www.sokoni.com/

Europe proposes new transparency law to fight corruption

Oct 25th, 2011 5:34 PM UTC
By Joseph Powell

The campaign for transparency in the oil, gas, mining and forestry industries was given a big boost today with the publication of European Commission proposals for a new law guaranteeing all company payments to governments will be published. This country-by-country and project-by-project reporting will give citizens the information they need to hold their leaders and companies accountable. ONE and the Publish What You Pay coalition have been working hard for this change and have warmly welcomed the proposed law.

ONE’s co-founder Bono had this to say on the move:

“This is a serious step forward by Barroso and Barnier, who have thrown their weight behind the fight by the citizens of poor countries to ensure their natural resource wealth turns into actual wealth for the people – and doesn’t line the pockets of dodgy dictators or distant exploiters. The next step is when the great activist himself, Bill Gates Jnr, presents the case for these legally binding measures to the world leaders of the G20, along with other historic proposals on financing the fight against poverty.”

Our Brussels Director Eloise Todd explains what needs to happen next to get the proposed law onto the statute books:

“President Barroso and Commissioner Barnier have shown real leadership. It is now the responsibility of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament to ensure that these proposals are implemented in full, which we trust will happen given the strong support from the French, British and the European Parliament. In some areas we will look to the Council and Parliament to tighten up the regulation, for example in removing the exemption for countries that would rather keep information secret. It is also essential that the provisions on project-level disclosure are strengthened. The murky deals between extractive companies and despots must become a thing of the past. The EU and its companies will now have to decide which side of history they want to be on.”

The issue of extractive industry transparency is crucial for development prospects in Africa. Huge flows of money are coming into the continent for natural resources ($246 billion in 2009) and yet far too much of it is not being spent on reducing poverty and strengthening public services. Transparency over individual projects gives citizens and activists the information they need to hold their governments accountable for money coming in.

The move by Europe complements ONE’s campaign for section 1504 of the US Dodd-Frank Act which ensures all US listed extractive industry companies will shortly be publishing their payments to governments. We are now moving towards a global standard of mandatory transparency, which was endorsed by the G8 and we hope to see progress on at the G20 next week.

Africa continues to recover from economic crisis

Oct 21st, 2011 3:39 PM UTC
By Lauren Pfeifer

This week the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released its Regional Economic Outlook for sub-Saharan Africa, “Sustaining the Expansion,” which found that Africa continues to recover well from the global economic crisis.

The IMF estimates predict robust growth for sub-Saharan Africa in 2011 and 2012: 5.25% in 2011 and 5.75% in 2012. By comparison, the 2011 World Economic Outlook anticipates the United States and European Union will grow by 1.5% and 1.7% in 2011. On average, global growth is estimated at 4% both years, buoyed by dynamic regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and other emerging economies.

Africa’s growth estimates assume that the global economy will regain some of its momentum and meet the 4% estimated growth in 2011 and 2012. If the global economy does not recover the way the IMF predicts, Africa’s growth would likely falter as well. South Africa is especially vulnerable to global trends, as it is most integrated into the global economy. A graph in the report (below) shows how middle income countries in sub-Saharan Africa, like South Africa, were the hardest hit by the global economic crisis. Growth in these countries is expected to reach only 4 to 4.5% in both 2011 and 2012.

Meanwhile, boosted by strong commodity prices, increased demand for exports and domestic good, and diversification of exports into higher-value added and fast-growing emerging markets, oil and natural resource exporting countries in sub-Saharan Africa are expected to grow faster than sub-Saharan Africa as a whole –- 6% in 2011 and 7% in 2012.

What does this mean for the poorest? In an interview about the report, Antoinette Sayeh, director of the African department at the IMF, cites new evidence that sub-Saharan Africa’s growth has been both inclusive and broad. Even though it is hard to draw overarching conclusions about growth in all of sub-Saharan Africa, Ms. Sayeh notes that this recent growth has been fairly inclusive. In the countries with high per-capita growth, the living standards of the poorest 25% have increased substantially. But, while growth is critical to reducing poverty, it is not always sufficient. Growth must be inclusive, reaching the poorest segments of the population.

In reviewing the research on inclusiveness, Ms. Sayeh notes that education levels and where someone lives effect the amount of money they spend on goods and services. The IMF research indicates that targeted investments in education and health services can help the poorest increase their incomes, overall well-being, and make sure that they benefit from economic growth. For the rural poor, increased investments in agricultural productivity — such as infrastructure investment in energy, irrigation, or transportation — produce more inclusive growth.

Agriculture holds the best hope to improve the living standards of the rural poor by providing jobs and increasing incomes. Sound familiar? This is what our new campaign is all about! If you want to learn more about the benefits of investing in agriculture, look here!

2011 World Food Prize

Oct 16th, 2011 5:56 PM UTC
By Hallie Stevens

This week, the World Food Prize Foundation awarded its annual prize to former Presidents John Agyekum Kufuor of Ghana and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil. The foundation hosts the award ceremony annually in Des Moines, Iowa, and celebrates individuals who advance human development by improving the quality, quantity or availability of food in the world. Attended by the most influential people in the food and agriculture sphere — including governmental leaders, policy makers, CEOs, NGOs, scientific and academic experts, development leaders, corporate executives and young leaders from across the globe — this year marks a celebration of Ghana and Brazil’s incredible achievements in fighting hunger and poverty.

Under the leadership of President Kufuor, Ghana has become the first country in sub-Saharan Africa to reach the first Millennium Development Goal, and has cut the number of people suffering from hunger and extreme poverty in half. The poverty rate has dropped from 51.7% in 1991 to 25.5% in 2008, and the hunger ra

Now for Action: Governments make commitments to openness, transparency and accountability

Sep 20th, 2011 6:10 PM UTC
By Alan Hudson

At 7.00 New York time, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa, the UK and the USA – the countries on the steering committee of the Open Government Partnership – published their Action Plans. They contain a wide range of exciting measures to enhance transparency and accountability and to make governments more open and responsive to their citizens. Efforts to tackle corruption feature heavily in many of the plans, including those of Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and South Africa. Initiatives to enhance budget transparency and to improve the delivery of public services feature in the plans of Brazil, Indonesia, the Philippines and South Africa. And welcome moves to enhance aid transparency feature in the plans of the UK and the USA. On transparency about natural resource revenues, Norway has signalled a commitment to consider passing legislation that would require multinationals to publish tax information on a country by country basis. And by signing up to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the USA has continued the leadership it showed last year in passing legislation on extractives transparency.

The Open Government Partnership (OGP) looks set to be an important forum for sharing experience, encouraging and assisting governments to become more open. Africa’s involvement is currently limited with just three African countries – Ghana, Kenya and Tanzania – joining South Africa within the OGP. However, the partnership has great relevance for Africa and for ONE: the ability of African citizens to hold their governments to account is shaped by the actions of the USA, the EU and other countries that provide aid to Africa and whose companies operate in Africa; African governments can share experience with other emerging economies as regards transparency and accountability; and, over time, we hope that many more African countries will choose to take the path towards more open, transparent and accountable government.

We know that in 2012, Brazil will continue to lead the way on the open government agenda, hosting meetings of the Open Government Partnership, the Global Initiative on Fiscal Transparency and the International Anti-Corruption Conference, and perhaps joining with the USA in requiring its oil companies to publish what they pay to the governments of the countries where they operate. And we trust that Mexico will pick up the baton of transparency and accountability as it takes over the leadership of the G20 from France.

For ONE’s introduction to OGP and a link to our policy pitch see here.

Or check out ONE’s full analysis of the Country Action Plans from a development perspective

Infrastructure – It’s not boring it’s essential!

Sep 14th, 2011 5:30 PM UTC
By Tom Wallace

Is ‘infrastructure’ a boring word to you? Because sometimes when I first mention it in conversations people don’t seem that interested.  Building a concrete road or putting up an electricity pylon doesn’t seem quite as exciting as giving a small child a lifesaving vaccine, does it?  However, in reality building that road could be just as lifesaving and transformative for the village at the end of it – it can allow villagers to reach hospital in lifesaving times, it can open the village up to new markets and opportunities to trade, and it can ensure the delivery of lifesaving healthcare and food in times of need.

In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) a lack of physical infrastructure is not an inconvenience, it is a daily hardship stunting economic growth and poverty reduction.  Many regions of Sub-Saharan Africa are still missing the essential physical required for human development, market generation and poverty alleviation.  70% of the population has no access to electricity, 95% of agriculture is without irrigation and the majority of the rural population is not served by roads to market.  Rural women walk an average of 6miles a day to get firewood and water – water that may not even be safe to drink.  A lack of infrastructure in Africa means poor people too often pay heavily in time and money to access vital services such as sanitation, healthcare and education – binding achievement of the Millennium Development Goals closely to infrastructure access.

It is not all gloom though – more recently there have been huge infrastructure success stories in the region. Telecoms have boomed largely without state support and companies have made considerable profits in this and other sectors.  In addition there has been significant progress on infrastructure projects in some major cities, coastal regions and around natural resource extraction sites.  However, further infrastructure development in Sub-Saharan Africa is essential for human development, poverty reduction and for Africa to realise its economic potential.

The good news is the G20 countries, a collection of the most powerful economic countries and the European Union, have realised this fact!

Last year, as part of the G20 Seoul Development Consensus, these countries recognised the important role infrastructure plays in poverty alleviation and economic growth.  A High Level Panel was set up to look at infrastructure funding and how best to mobilise and scale up financing for this important underfunded sector.

Next month this panel will report back to the G20 with recommendations.  However it is important when this happens that they appreciate that some infrastructure is more effective at alleviating poverty than others.  To take an extreme example – a clean water delivery pipeline to isolated village where there is currently no safe freshwater will be much more beneficial than a broadband internet cable to the same village who don’t even own a computer.  Both are types of infrastructure but one is obviously more beneficial to the village people’s essential needs.  To be most effective at tackling poverty reduction the High Level Panel should be aware of how best infrastructure can help alleviate poverty and the ways to ensure infrastructure benefits for the poorest.  ONE has tried to ensure the panel considers this and recently sent a submission to them explaining the ways their recommendations and the G20 can ensure this.  You can find our submission online here.

ONE will be pushing to make sure governments appreciate these points and keep a strong focus on Africa’s infrastructure need in the coming years, because – frankly – infrastructure isn’t boring it’s essential.

Africans pledge $350 million for famine relief; long-term solutions to be discussed in Kenya next month

Aug 26th, 2011 12:50 PM UTC
By Nora Coghlan

African governments and institutions committed nearly $350 million for famine relief yesterday at the African Union’s first-ever pledging conference. Coming together under the banner “One Africa – One Voice Against Hunger,” panelists and participants called for African solidary and united action to respond to the Horn’s worst drought in 60 years.

The collective effort demonstrated by the AU is a solid first step that should be applauded. The African Development Bank accounted for the vast majority of the pledge, committing $300 million for programs over a five-year period. Notable individual contributions were made by Algeria (pledging $10 million), South Africa ($10 million), Egypt ($5 million), Angola ($5 million) and the Democratic Republic of Congo ($5 million). Another nine countries made $1-3 million pledges (including Africa’s newest country of South Sudan), and a handful more made smaller cash and in-kind donations.

Though the AU is facing criticism for the size of its commitment, the precedent set at yesterday’s summit is an important one that should be applauded. As the BBC’s Martin Plaut points out, the AU was never designed to be a fundraising organization and the conference “charts a new course” for the institution.

Acknowledging that the AU is often criticized for its “slow and inadequate” responses to emergencies, AU Commissioner Jean Ping urged participants to take note of other important contributions made by African states, such Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti’s hosting of Somali refugees and troops sent to Mogadishu by Uganda and Burundi.

UN Deputy Secretary General Asha Rose Miguro also applauded African efforts, noting that “above all, this crisis is being tackled by local people and institutions.” She warned that a future generation is hanging in the balance, and commended the AU for taking its “rightful place at the forefront of the response.”

Similar to pledges made by traditional donors, clarity is needed around many yesterday’s commitments. This is especially true for South Africa (whose $10 million pledge included private donations) and countries that contributed to the $350 million commitment from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) last week (including Algeria, Egypt and Gabon). AU Vice-Commissioner Erastus Mwencha said the AU was working with outside institutions to track commitments and monitor their delivery.

In the months ahead, it is also critical that Africans lead the campaign to develop long-term solutions to prevent future crises. Many of yesterday’s presenters reiterated that experts were predicting the drought months ahead of time; Prime Minister Meles Zenawi dedicated most of his remarks to outlining the measures taken to prepare for the drought in Ethiopia, which he said kept the country from slipping into famine.

Since yesterday’s summit was designed to respond to the crisis, the lack of concrete commitments towards long-term food security was not surprising. There was also no mention of the pledges by many African governments to allocate 10% of their national budgets towards agricultural development (known as the Maputo targets).

When delegates meet in Kenya next month to discuss long-term solutions to drought and famine, these targets should be on the forefront of the agenda. Doing so would demonstrate that African governments are not only stepping up to respond to the current emergency, but are also committed to providing the leadership necessary to prevent these crises in the future.

Donor funding for AIDS dips 10 percent

Aug 24th, 2011 2:32 PM UTC
By Erin Hohlfelder

Last week, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) and UNAIDS released their annual report on donor funding for AIDS — and the news this year wasn’t great. Measuring disbursements (money out the door) rather than just commitments or pledges, KFF and UNAIDS found that funding from donor governments for AIDS in low- and middle-income countries fell for the first time, down 10% from 2009 to 2010.

Seven of the 15 governments surveyed — Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United States — reported a year-over-year decrease in their disbursements as measured in their own currencies. An accompanying press release pointed to three main factors leading to the $740 million decrease: actual reductions in development assistance; currency exchange fluctuations; and a specific slowdown in the pace of US disbursements, which was not a budget cut but was instead largely the result of new Congressional requirements for PEPFAR disbursements.

This overall decrease marks a stark reversal in trends for AIDS spending. Previous KFF and UNAIDS reports cited a six-fold increase in disbursements between 2002 and 2008 before leveling in 2009, which allowed for impressive gains in the treatment and prevention of AIDS.

Particularly now — in a year that saw major breakthroughs in the potential for AIDS treatment as prevention, increased efficacy of female microbicides, and a renewed focus on bending the AIDS epidemic curve — it is disappointing to see donors fail to meet this growing momentum with appropriate increases in funding. Of course, the last year also saw a major uptick in global enthusiasm for maternal and child health issues, including vaccines (and the increased energy and funding were welcome). But with millions still in need of treatment for AIDS, simply prioritizing other health issues or citing the difficult economic environment are not sufficient excuses for slowing down funding for programs that work effectively and save lives.

For more on country-specific disbursements, as well as to see breakdowns between donors’ multilateral spending for AIDS (primarily through the Global Fund) and bilateral spending, visit KFF’s website for detailed slides.