Annexes to COM(2010)643 - Mutual Accountability and Transparency A Fourth Chapter for the EU Operational Framework on Aid Effectiveness - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2010)643 - Mutual Accountability and Transparency A Fourth Chapter for the EU Operational Framework on Aid Effectiveness. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2010)643  |
| date | November 5, 2010 |
The Monterrey questionnaire is currently the only monitoring tool at EU level that provides information on aid-related commitments by EU donors. But it does not provide donors' and partner countries assessments of progress in implementing their mutual commitments. Instead, donors report on whether/how they implemented mutual accountability frameworks .
A common EU approach to hold EU donors and partner countries accountable towards their mutual commitments makes sense for all EU donors. Such a harmonised approach would be useful also to increase the impact, coherence and results focus of our aid. In addition, it would reduce costs for the partner countries by having only one common framework through which they need to be accountable to all EU donors.
At national level, there is a need for some basic building blocks in order to facilitate mutual accountability.
Firstly, it must be clear who is holding whom to account . Mutual accountability involves not only the governments of donors and partners, but equally involves those who are governed. This aspect, known as domestic accountability, can involve a wide range of domestic stakeholders including parliaments, local authorities, civil society organisations, women's groups, the media, political parties, etc. These domestic actors have vital roles to play in terms of providing input for national development strategies, scrutinising progress in fulfilling aid effectiveness and development commitments, and ultimately sanctioning governments for poor performance.
Mutual accountability also requires an arena, i.e. agreement on where the process is to take place . One way of accomplishing this is by establishing frameworks for aid management such as joint Performance Assessment Frameworks (PAF) where development partners can meet and assess the fulfilment of commitments and decide on how to follow-up. There is no universally-agreed template for how a PAF should be designed and carried out. Preferably, it should be based on existing relationship forums. These could have more formalised rules and procedures, or be based on more informal arrangements. They can take the form of annual consultations, consultative groups, joint review panels, etc. The most important aspect is that a PAF provides an arena conducive to establishing reciprocal trust and confidence. It should help to create synergies between existing local aid management processes and should be integrated into existing frameworks for dialogue.
Furthermore, it is also necessary to define the focus of accountability, i.e. agreement on what the relevant parties are to be held accountable for . This involves creating a shared agenda to set out clear goals and commitments for both sides. This shared agenda could include elements regarding national or sector development plans and strategies, i.e. agreement on what the assistance should be used for. It could also focus on aid effectiveness commitments, for instance agreement on how assistance is to be channelled. The important point is that clarity is established as to each party's responsibilities, and thus what they will be held accountable for.
Joint Performance Assessment Framework in Practice – Examples Mozambique The Mozambican mutual accountability framework is based on an independent evaluation of the Programme Aid Partners performance in Mozambique. Donors scrutinise Government performance on the basis of country’s monitoring and evaluation framework for its poverty reduction plan and on monitoring progress in development. Donors are assessed on the basis of a matrix of commitments and a rating (points) system, aggregated into global levels of performance (very good, medium high, medium, medium low, low) Aid performance monitoring efforts are further enhanced by the ODA Mozambique (ODAMOZ) database - which provides vital information on donor financing – and the Development Observatory. Mozambique is one of the few countries to have developed an institutional framework for participatory poverty monitoring at national, provincial and local levels. Efforts to support better transparency and domestic accountability need to be further strengthened. Rwanda Two Joint Review Mechanisms: Common Performance Assessment Framework (CPAF) and Donor Performance Assessment Framework (DPAF) A total of 26 indicators are used to assess the performance of the donors, grounded in internationally and nationally agreed targets on the quality of aid. The assessment is done on the basis of an annual cycle, timed to coincide with the assessment and discussion of government performance in the context of the Government Performance Assessment Framework. Donors facilitate data collection and aggregation by self-reporting on a number of indicators on a timely basis. It is anticipated that the Development Assistance Database will be upgraded to facilitate this reporting. Collection, aggregation and analysis of data into DPAF matrix (led by the Ministry of Economy and Finance). Results are presented and discussed in the Development Partners Coordination Group, with more focused discussions taking place in the Budget support Harmonisation Group. Donor internal responses/planning, action plans shared with the government and Development partners. |
MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
- Mutual accountability is also being promoted in many international fora. These include independent peer reviews such as the OECD DAC peer reviews, the annual EU Report on Financing for Development (Monterrey Report), non-official assessments of performance such as the EU Aid Watch by Concord (Confederation of European civil society organisations), and other types of reporting and analysis carried out by the IMF/World Bank (Global Monitoring Report), ECOSOC Development Cooperation Forum, UNECA/OECD (Mutual Review of Aid Effectiveness), the G8 (Accountability Report on Development issued in 2010), the Paris Survey and the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness.
Mutual accountability at the international level should reinforce accountability at the national level. However, this does not always occur effectively, sometimes due to the lopsided aid relationship between donors and partners. The agenda for accountability at the international level could at times better reflect the concerns and interests of partner country governments and stakeholders. Moreover, partner country stakeholders often lack sufficient analysis and information, and as a result are unable to engage fully and on equal terms with donors. Furthermore, international efforts to promote mutual accountability lack the means for partner country countries to sanction donors, or of making donor commitments enforceable.
A CCOUNTABILITY AND HUMANITARIAN AID
GOOD HUMANITARIAN DONORSHIP PRINCIPLES AND GOOD PRACTICES WERE ESTABLISHED BY 16 DONORS IN 2003 [11]. These principles seek, inter alia , to promote partnership and good donor practices in financing, management, accountability. By firmly endorsing these principles through the European Consensus on humanitarian aid[12], the EU has shown its strong commitment to promoting effective, responsible and accountable humanitarian donorship[13]. The accountability framework addresses the specificity of humanitarian aid and in particular: its needs based approach, the speed of delivery, the short term horizon and its reactive nature.
Various mechanisms and tools exist to ensure transparency and coordination of the EU humanitarian assistance:
- An operational strategy with a well established methodology for budgetary allocations on a needs based approach. This strategy and detailed forward-looking planning is shared and coordinated with all relevant stakeholders;
- A reporting system developed and managed by the Commission, called "14-points", which provides real-time information on humanitarian assistance implemented by the Commission and Member States. This system is linked to the Financial Tracking System operated by UN-OCHA which provides similar information on the worldwide humanitarian assistance.
PROPOSAL FOR A FOURTH CHAPTER OF THE OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK
In order to address the wide discrepancies between the different EU donors, both regarding transparency and mutual accountability practices, it is important to define an EU common approach, and practical steps to be taken jointly at EU level in order to implement our joint commitments.
The following section constitutes the proposed text to be included as a fourth chapter to the Operational Framework on Aid Effectiveness.
Aid Transparency
The Commission and EU Member States will provide comprehensive and comparable information on development expenditure on a regular basis by:
1. Publicly disclosing information on aid volume and allocation following the OECD/DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS) standard format, on a quarterly basis, by the beginning of October 2011, with a maximum information time lag of three months.
2. Provide country-level information on forward-looking data, on an annual basis, starting as of the beginning of July 2011:
2.1 Based on the DAC Survey on Donors' Forward Spending Plans methodology disclosing at least three, and up to five year forward-looking data on global aid spending, for all partner countries;
2.2 Disclosing at least three, and up to 5, year forward-looking aid allocations sector by sector, for all countries of the Fast Track Initiative on Division of Labour.
3. Make the EU Annual Report on Financing for Development a model of transparency and accountability by using the Monterrey questionnaire process to track progress at headquarters and country level.
4. Use the TR AID tool in order to publish and share their data with each other;
4.1 In a first phase on a voluntary basis, with no specific data format required;
4.2 In a second phase on a mandatory basis, after the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Korea in 2011, using a common standardised data format to be determined in line with international standards.
Mutual Accountability at National Level
The Commission and EU Member States will, in and with, all partner countries:
1. Establish a joint framework for monitoring joint commitments, building upon existing systems whenever possible[14]:
- In countries under the Division of Labour Fast Track Initiative (FTI), facilitators will, in cooperation with EU Delegations, initiate discussions on mutual accountability with the partner government and other domestic stakeholders. In non-FTI countries, the EU Delegation will organise a meeting to agree which donor will initiate discussions on mutual accountability.
- Within partners countries’ priorities and targets, establish a joint Performance Assessment Framework by July 2011 to regularly review donor performance on their country level aid effectiveness commitments. Member States will encourage partner country leadership in this process.
- The joint Performance Assessment Framework should be established on the basis of the following guiding principles:
- Inclusiveness: it should aim to include all donors in-country as well as the national budget;
- Reciprocity: it should cover both donor commitments and partner country commitments;
- Comparability: it should monitor performance of individual donors in a comparable manner;
- Regularity: assessments should be undertaken at least once a year;
- Self-reporting: donors and the government should commit to provide data of their operations in-country on a regular basis measured against pre-determined criteria.
- These Performance Assessment Frameworks should be assessed in time to publish results of the country level joint performance and share with headquarters by November 2011, and to carry out necessary adjustments.
- The implementation of these joint commitments will feed into the ongoing policy dialogues between donors and partner countries at project, sector and national levels. The EU will also use policy dialogue to encourage public debate so as to hold both donors and governments accountable.
2. In the process described above, the EU and its Member States will support the role of civil society organisations including women’s groups and media, local governments and parliament, in holding governments and donors to account, including the provision of necessary capacity development support.
Mutual Accountability at international level
The EU and its Member States will work together towards a common vision on the future aid architecture following the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, by July 2011.
They will:
1. Coordinate their position in discussions on international mutual accountability under different fora, including the UN Development Cooperation Forum and the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness. This includes supporting efforts by the Development Cooperation Forum to collect and disseminate independent and authoritative analysis and assessments on mutual accountability.
2. Support a more inclusive framework for a strengthened involvement of partner countries, local authorities, parliamentarians, and civil society.
[1] In 2008, only 14 of 54 countries were reported to have country level “mutual assessment reviews” in place to hold each other to account for mutual commitments.
[2] Paragraph 15 of the European Consensus (http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/european_consensus_2005_en.pdf
[3] Council Conclusions on "The EU as a global partner for development: Speeding up progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)" 27 May 2008 (http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st09/st09907.en08.pdf)
[4] Council of 22 July 2008 (http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st12/st12080.en08.pdf)
[5] Council Conclusions of 17 November 2009 (http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st15/st15912.en09.pdf
[6] Council Conclusions of 18 May 2009 (http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/COMM_PDF_COM_2009_0160_F_EN_COUNCIL_CONCLUSIONS.PDF)
[7] Council Conclusions of 15 June 2010 (doc. 11080/10)
[8] In cluster C of the Working Party, in the related task team on predictability and aid transparency and in the framework of the DAC Aid allocation technical group
[9] http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CRSNEW
[10] http://www.aiddata.org/home/index
[11] The Principles and Good practice of Humanitarian Donorship, Stockholm, 17 June 2003; endorsed by the OECD
[12] Official Journal C 25/1, 30.1.2008 – Section 3.3 on effectiveness and accountability of humanitarian aid
[13] idem
[14] In the case of EU candidate countries and potential candidates the Annual Report on the Instrument for Pre-Accession and the joint monitoring committees form a basis for aspects of a Performance assessment framework. These vehicles can be adapted to more systematically provide relevant data such as financial analysis and data on aid effectiveness commitments