INTERATIONAL SOCIETY FOR POVERTY ELIMINATION ECONOMIC ALLIANCE GROUP
Special Address to COP22, Marrakech, 7 – `18 November 2016
Proposal on Actualizing COP21 Vision: International Development Cooperation Reform – Maker or Breaker of Global Agreements?
The need to improve Aid Effectiveness led to landmark Paris Agreement in 2005 that was improved in 2007 through Accra Action Agenda and further improved in 2011 through Bussan Declaration. Yet the challenges of design and delivery of Effective Aid remain as Big today in 2016 as in 2005.
The 3 Global Agreements in 2015; AAAA, SDG and COP21 reset our World towards achieving Goal of World without Poverty that is focus our World towards Fighting and Winning War on Poverty and War on Terror in each of the 193/306 UN Member States by 2030 Target date.
As Aid, Trade, Debts, Anti Corruption and Ant Terror Interventions from Community to Global levels have much to contribute, if the Global Goals in these Global Agreements are to be achieved by the 2030 Target date, a need arises for really finding clear and correct answers to why Paris Declaration, PD recorded the flaws and failures it did and what corrections could and should be made if these flaws and failures are not to be re-occurring decimals in Bussan Declaration, BD.
In November 2016, 3 UN System Events – IMF Annual Research Conference; COP22 and HLM2 are Platforms that could provide space for objective review of these real and complex problems to come up with practical and sustainable solutions in Global Interest.
ISPE/EAG in this Paper set out thoughts on priorities and directions moving forward as Community to Global Stakeholder adopt Joined Up Approach towards sustainable solutions to all identified real and complex BD, AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 problems on the ground in each Community in each of the 193/306 UN Member States.
The highlights of the Paper are need for Paradigm Shifts.
The real and complex BD, AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 problems on the ground in each Community in each of 193/306 UN Member States are difficult but not impossible to solve. Indeed, there are Bright Prospects of Success, if all good ideas and pertinent suggestions generated in the Global Consultation as well as the 3 November 2016 UN Events are harvested, fully implemented with effective monitoring and evaluation of same.
The landmark COP21 Paris Agreement came into force on 4 November 2016, on the eve of COP22. This is indeed commendable achievement. As at 4 November 2016 155 Parties (154 Countries and the European Union) accounting in total for at least an estimated 55% of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depository, out of the 177 Parties (176 Countries and the European Union) that signed the Paris Agreement.
In the great task of achieving increasing convergence between COP21 Vision Intention and Reality in each Community in each of the Countries that have signed the Paris Agreement, there is a need to go back in History to the 2005 Paris Declaration and its Scorecard, at its 2010 Target Date, compare this with 2011 Bussan Declaration and its 5 year Scorecard in 2016, with a view towards identifying lessons of history and actually learning lessons from mistakes of history.
This Paper set out ISPE/EAG Thoughts on New Priorities and New Direction for COP21 Signatories, especially the Parties that have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depository, if Sustainable Solutions to Climate Change and Agriculture in particular and National Development and World Development in general, that effectively promote and protect the Common Interest and Common Future of over 7 Billion People, especially the over 2 Billion Poor, in both Developed and Developing Countries are to be found, fully implemented with effective monitoring and evaluation of this implementation, and on time to avoid total collapse of our Fragile Planet.
Paris Declaration – Overall Aim and Strategic Intent
The Paris Declaration (PD) on Aid Effectiveness was endorsed in March 2005 by more than 100 Countries and International Agencies with specific commitments for Donors and Partner Countries to improve aid effectiveness. The overall aim and Strategic Intent was to improve the quality of aid and its impact on development. It has been subject to two fairly comprehensive evaluations. The first led to the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA) in 2008 which highlighted the role of parliaments and civil society; the second evaluation report was completed in 2011 and was discussed at the Fourth High Level Forum in Bussan, South Korea, in November 2011.
PD targets were set for 2010 and in Bussan discussion focused on assessing progress and setting the direction for the future. Meanwhile, in a climate of economic crisis in donor countries, there was in 2010 and still is now in 2016, a need to reconcile the tension between donors’ need for visible short term results and Value for Money with a desire to step back from micromanagement and allow partner countries to “own” development.
Paris Declaration, PD Evaluation
Published by the OECD, but prepared by an independent reference group, the Phase II Evaluation of the PD sets out to assess the Declaration’s contribution to aid effectiveness and development results over the five years to 2010. It does so by examining 22 country evaluations and seven donor and multilateral development agency studies. Rejecting a quantitative approach to analysis, suggesting that the evidence remains weak and unreliable, the Report adopts a largely qualitative methodology. It examines the distance and pace travelled on the 11 intended goals of the Paris Declaration, explaining that development is a journey and the path travelled by different actors is varied by distance and pace.
A key objective of the PD was to reduce the transaction costs involved with so many donors all trying to help. However, the report finds that progress has been disappointing in relation to the hopes of rapidly reducing the burdens of aid management. The Report states that, with the exception of Malawi, there are “no clear findings of reduced administration burdens” (p.29) and in some cases, such as Vietnam and Senegal, transaction costs have or are likely to have increased.
The PD was essentially a Vision and Words without Action Agenda, but at its heart were the simple ideas of harmonization — that donors should cooperate more — and alignment — that donors should work through recipient or partner government systems, rather than on their own. Yet it was in relation to these core aims that the Evaluation was, in its own quiet way, the most damning. The evaluation found that “much further effort on more active harmonization is required” (p.19) and that there is “limited if any overall increase by most donors in the use of country systems and processes” (p.24). Regretfully, these points remain valid today - 6 years later.
The Report was not all negative. It found that the PD made several distinct improvements to aid effectiveness by clarifying and strengthening the norms of good practice, improving the quality of aid partnerships and supporting higher aid volumes. It found further that PD was at its most positive in relation to ownership, the idea that the recipients of aid should take more responsibility for it. Of the 22 country studies, the report found that almost all had a relatively robust national development strategy in place, and half demonstrated “various degrees of strengthening in the consultative and participatory foundations of the development strategies since 2005” (p.23).
Overall though, the Report was a pretty depressing read. Going forward, the report put forward 11 recommendations to policy makers in both partner and donor countries. It highlighted the need for high level political engagement and support, including the need for non-bureaucratic and focused forums; greater transparency, mutual accountability and shared risk management; and stronger country-led mechanisms and leadership in partner countries.
Arguably these recommendations are not particularly novel in the extensive aid literature. But they were useful in the run up to Bussan and they led to the establishment of Global Partnership on Effective Development Cooperation, GPEDC in 2011 but taking effect in 2012.
It would be interesting to find out how many of the Report’s 11 recommendations were fully implemented with good, flawed and failed scorecard and how many were not implemented at all. This evaluation report is important, if concerned community to global stakeholders are to have good understanding of where Aid Effectiveness and Development Cooperation is now from Community to Global levels (A); where Aid Effectiveness and Development Cooperation need to be if Global Goals – AAAA, SDG, COP21 and Agenda 21 aligned and harmonized with Community Development Plans in each of 193/306 UN Member States needs to be, if the Global Goals are to be achieved by their 2030 Target date (B) and What needs to be done to move effectively from (A) to (B) – (C).
It is pertinent to note that AAAA, SDG, COP21 is also each Vision and Words without Action and that it is by responding positively to issues consistently raised by ISPE/EAG that AAAA, SDG, COP21 etc could each be Vision and Words with Action.
Road to Bussan
The Bussan conference was the fourth and final of four high level aid forums, the first of which was held in Rome in 2002. Bussan was expected to be the most difficult for two reasons, both of which relate to the Paris Declaration (which was adopted at the second forum, held in Paris). The first problem was and still is that emerging donors such as China accept the Paris Declaration of aid as recipients but not as donors, yet they are increasingly important sources of aid. The second problem was, as was clear from the PD evaluation, that the Paris Declaration has not been a success. Therefore Bussan cannot bury Paris: too much had been invested in it, and it was and still is popular with Developing Country recipients of aid. Yet nor, for the two reasons above, can Bussan simply praise Paris.
5 years later we have seen How Bussan has played out, as influenced by the report - In particular, its highlights on the need to review the perception of the Paris Declaration as a technical and formula-driven approach to improve aid effectiveness, and focus instead on underlying, and less prescriptive reforms. Indeed, the Report’s recommendations made a good starting point for a Bussan communiqué focused not on PD itself but on the spirit of partnership it embodies. The reality today, is that PD may be comatose but it is still alive and needs to be resuscitated, if the Bright Prospects of achieving Global Goals by 2030 Target date; is to be actualized Worldwide.
PD and BD Renewing Linkages
5 years after Bussan Declaration BD, it is clear that the PD principles are still relevant but that new efforts are needed to ensure more realistic approaches to their implementation.
“Overall, little can truly be said with any degree of certainty about the link between the PD and development results – there is too large a gap between the high level agreement of a document in Paris, and the messy reality of implementing development on the ground”. This was the position in 2010, today, 6 years later, despite Giant Strides made in volume of Aid, even when many Developed Countries have not met their 0.7% GNI, the gap between BD and Development Results and Development Impact is still huge.
In the words of a donor Foreign Minister “Many donor countries have broken the bargain”, that is, they haven’t aligned enough or not at all. These are the “free riders” referred to in the evaluation report which includes some “traditional” and also “new” donors (Brazil, China, India, Russia, etc).
This point underlines the need to revisit PD and renew its linkages to BD starting from first principles – if we do not know why PD has flaws and failures; we will not know How to design BD that will succeed on sustainable basis.
PD and BD Uniform Nomenclature of Principles and Effectively Realigning Indicators with Global Goals and Targets
The PD was organized around 5 key principles of aid effectiveness;
1. Ownership: Partner countries exercise effective leadership over their development policies and strategies and co-ordinate development actions;
2. Alignment: Donors base their overall support on partner countries' national development strategies, institutions and procedures;
3. Harmonization: Donors' actions are more transparent, collectively effective and harmonized with each other;
4. Managing for Results: Managing resources and improving decision-making with a focus on results; and
5. Mutual Accountability: Donors and partners are accountable to each other for development results.
The BD was organized around 5 key principles of aid effectiveness;
1. Ownership (same as PD);
2. Focus on Results (same as PD with slight name change – Managing for Result);
3. Inclusive Partnerships (same as PD but with different name - Harmonization);
4. Transparency (same as PD but with different name - Alignment) and
5. Accountability (same as PD with slight name change – Mutual Accountability).
In view of the above, there is a need firstly for common agreement on uniform nomenclature; secondly for common agreement on realigning Indicators with Global Goals and Targets within 2030 Agenda – AAAA, SDG, COP21 and Agenda 21 aligned and harmonized with Community Development Plans and Country Development Plans in each of the 176 Countries that have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depository; thirdly for common agreement of correct diagnosis, prescription, surgery and recovery management mechanism and fourthly for common agreement on One Worldwide Systemic Approach that is a Generic Approach that could be adapted to suit unique and specific Community to Global location context and not a One Cap Fit All Approach, if the BD is to succeed on sustainable basis where the PD had flaws and failures.
Climate Change and Agriculture and SDG
According to the Fifth Report of the Inter-government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change is projected to negatively affect agricultural production. Smallholder farmers, forest dwellers, herders and fishers are particularly vulnerable to climatic variation, as they depend directly on natural resources and often have limited assets and reduced capacity to adapt to change.
In many countries, agriculture also contributes a substantial share of the total GHG emissions. It is estimated that GHG emissions from the Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use Sector, AFOLU sector make up 24 percent of global emissions, making it the largest GHG emitting sector after energy. Global emissions from agriculture are rising, with emissions from crops and livestock increasing by almost 100 percent between 1961- 2012
According to FAO estimates, if trends in food consumption patterns do not change, global food production will need to increase by 60 percent over the next 30 years to meet demand. Increased food production is expected to result in higher GHG emissions.
For this reason, it is important to transform agricultural systems; to set them on a low-emission, climate-resilient development pathway that reduces the GHG intensity of food by lowering the amount of emissions per unit of agricultural product. In agriculture, there are many opportunities for reducing GHG emissions and increasing resilience to climate change. The mitigation potential of agriculture is high, and 70 percent of this potential is in developing countries.
Much of this mitigation potential can be reached by improving existing agricultural practices and increasing production efficiency. For example, in the livestock sector, a 30 percent reduction in GHG emissions would be possible if every producer would adopt the technologies and practices already being used by the least emission-intensive producers. These findings demonstrate the importance of expanding the uptake of improved practices, which can be accomplished through the policy harmonization, technology transfer and extension services.
The integration of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions, NAMAs, SDGs and the Paris Agreement: Unique Opportunity to Jointly Address Food Security and Climate Change.
NAMAs can serve as one of the instruments for the implementation of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, INDCs submitted by each Country Signatory to COP21 and the realization of SDGs. The NAMA concept, introduced in the UNFCCC’s Bali Action Plan in 2007, refers to any action that reduces GHG emissions and is implemented under the umbrella of a national governmental initiative for sustainable development. NAMAs should be sustainable, scalable and replicable, and lead to transformational change. NAMAs can play an essential role in the new climate landscape and enable countries to attract funding for initiatives that both reduce GHG emissions and strengthen food security.
As of July 2016, interventions in the AFOLU sector were included in around 18 percent of all NAMA submissions to the UNFCCC NAMA Registry (www4.unfccc.int/sites/ nama). The majority of AFOLU NAMAs have been submitted by countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. All the AFOLU NAMAs that have attracted funding are from middle-income countries. Submitted AFOLU NAMAs cover many different areas, including livestock production, fertilizer application, manure management, rice cultivation, and mangrove restoration and reforestation. A high proportion of AFOLU NAMAs (44 percent) are multi-sectorial, linking agricultural production, waste management and energy production.
A limited number of NAMA proposals in the AFOLU sector have received financing. However, there is still a gap between NAMAs development and implementation. Countries have reported bottlenecks related to barriers in technology adoption and capacity, and the limited engagement of various stakeholders along the value chains of the food system.
To increase their implementation rate, NAMAs need to be explicitly linked to INDCs and SDGs. The experiences that have been gained and the lessons learned from NAMA development, and from efforts to overcome the technical, financial and institutional barriers to NAMA implementation, can contribute to the success of INDCs and the realization of SDGs. A holistic approach – that is One Worldwide Approach, must be taken when promoting climate change mitigation activities in agriculture. Mitigation actions should not be proposed in isolation.
To unlock the significant climate change mitigation potential of agriculture, policy makers should establish supportive policy frameworks that provide incentives for private sector engagement; connect climate change issues with rural development; and foster synergies between the multiple benefits derived from the sustainable transformation of agricultural production as well as sustainable transformation of agricultural processing.
It is especially important to demonstrate to farmers, herders, fishers and foresters and other stakeholders in the agricultural value chain that tangible benefits (e.g. increased production, higher incomes, reduced costs and improved livelihoods) can be obtained by adopting low emission practices. If these benefits are not evident, food producers, processors, distributers and marketers will be unwilling to modify their practices. Climate change resilience, mitigation and adaptation actions should be considered in national budgets and linked to the national agricultural development plans, food security and climate change strategies.
In view of the above, there is a need to develop and strengthen the capacities of national officials and establish coordination mechanisms between national and sub-national institutions. As many agricultural NAMAs involve multi-sectorial interventions, it is important at a very early stage to engage with other government ministries and with the private sector.
There is also a need to integrate NAMAs into National Resilience, Mitigation and Adaptation Plans, NRMAP (Climate Change and Agriculture) with 9 Components – Agriculture; Ecosystem and Biodiversity; Water; Health – Plant, Animal, Human; Tourism; Infrastructure; Energy; Humanitarian; Institutional and Systems Reform and to ensure that NRMAP is Integral Part of Sustainable Solutions to Development, Diplomacy, Defense, Data, Democracy and Elections real and complex problems on the ground in each of the 193/306 UN Member States.
It is pertinent to note that the fundamental issues underlying root problems in each of the 9 NRMAPs (Climate Change and Agriculture) Components are well beyond what only Trained Economists can handle and that explains why working HARDer is not delivering Better Performance and Results in UNFCCC and indeed other UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF Entities as well as in UN Member States Entities sides.
Rethinking National and International Development Cooperation Reform
The 3 Global Agreements in 2015: AAAA essentially the Finance Dimension of SDG; SDG essentially the Transformation Agenda and COP21 essentially the Climate Change Dimension of the SDG and the earlier Agenda 21 essentially the Environment Dimension of the SDG, collectively aim to help find correct answers to real and complex political, cultural, economic, financial, social, environment, peace, security, religious, moral, legal and technical problems on the ground facing each of the 176 Countries that have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depository.
However, we wish to restate that if we really do not know why PD failed, we will not know How to design BD that will succeed on sustainable basis. The past 5 years implementing BD is evidence that the actual lessons learnt is that no lessons have been learnt. This is not helpful.
Also, if we do not know why Major Groups failed in Agenda 21 and UNEP, we will not know How to design Major Groups that will succeed in AAAA, SDG, COP21. Again the past year of implementing SDG is evidence that the actual lessons learnt is that no lessons have been learnt.
If stakeholders are to build effective bridge between lessons learning and lessons forgetting, a condition for actually learning lessons, that is in turn a condition for achieving increasing convergence between NAMA, NRMAP-Ag, NRMAP, BD, AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 Visions aligned and harmonized with Country Development Plans and Country Development Plans in each of the 176 Countries that have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depository, a need arises to Rethink International Development Cooperation Reform, IDCR and without delay.
Multi Stakeholder Platforms, MSPs and Community of Practices, COPs
What is the Scorecard of the implementation of PD Evaluation Report recommendations? Are the realities of Aid Effectiveness and Development Cooperation real and complex problems on the ground today, not evidence that 6 years later, not much may have been achieved in the implementation as well as the monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the PD Evaluation Report? Can the implementation as well as the monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the PD Evaluation Report that could deliver sustainable benefits in design and delivery of Aid Effectiveness and Development Cooperation Policy, Program, Project Interventions, 3PIs and 3PIs Training as One be done without Political Community: Decision Makers and Policy Makers; Practice Community: Professionals and Practitioners and Research Community: Researchers and Academics significantly improving collaboration, cooperation, cohesion, coordination from Community to Global levels?
Can these Interactions be Institutionalized without each of the 3 Communities having Research and Data; Planning and Implementation; Monitoring and Evaluation: Learning, Results and Measuring Success: Multi Stakeholder Platforms, MSPs as well as Community of Practices, COPs from Community to Global levels?
The traditional separation between the Political Community: Decision Makers and Policy Makers; Practice Community: Professionals and Practitioners and Research Community: Researchers and Academics has largely proven unhelpful, hence the need to design inclusive Multi Stakeholder Platforms with a level of official recognition and having Membership drawn from the 3 Communities. This could help build closer and more integrated working relationships over prolonged periods that are more capable of fostering cross boundary understanding between the 3 Communities. Doing so, however, is not cheap or organizationally straightforward and it raises some serious concerns about independence and impartiality that need to be effectively addressed for the sustainable benefits of such MSPs to be actualized.
The Big Questions – Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy, IMES
We have consistently submitted that in the work towards achieving 2030 Agenda Vision; What questions have been over answered and How questions avoided or evaded in UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF Events. We have now discovered that some What questions are still outstanding alongside these How questions and related questions. For example, on the Monitoring and Evaluation side:-
1. What research and evaluation designs are appropriate for specific research questions and what are the methodological characteristics of robust research (development research rather than academic research?
2. What is an appropriate balance between new primary research and the exploitation of existing research through secondary analysis?
3. What approaches can be used to identify gaps in current knowledge provision and how could the filling of such gaps be prioritized for better success in the work towards achieving National and Global Goals?
4. How can the need for rigor be balanced with the need for timely findings of practical relevance?
5. How should research and evaluation be commissioned (and subsequently managed) to fill all identified gaps in (3)?
6. How can research and evaluation capacity be developed to allow a rapid increase in the availability of research based information?
7. How are the tensions to be managed between the desirability of “independent” researchers and evaluators free from the more overt forms of political contamination and the need for close cooperation (bordering on dependence) between research users and research providers?
8. How should research and evaluation findings be communicated and more importantly, How can research and evaluation users be engaged with the research and evaluation production process to ensure ready application of its findings?
Aid is in the spotlight and has been for some years now, especially since the amount of aid being provided has been increasing and in the near future could reduce should looming Global Recession become reality. Yet in the absence of major improvements in the quality of aid, budge increases on their own will not help to reduce poverty, not to talk of eliminating poverty. Matters could be worse when stakeholders have to do more with same or less. Therefore, What is required and has been missing is ambitious reforms, which essentially answer all What, Why, Where, When, Who and How, including DOING of How questions in the aid and cooperation system that is integral part of same answers to same questions in other ambitious systems reform – trade and investment system; justice and anti corruption system; economic and finance system; defense and security system; citizenship and leadership system as well as research and data/statistics system; planning and implementation system; monitoring and evaluation system; learning, results and measuring success system.
One reason why these reforms have been slow to materialize is the weakness of accountability mechanisms within these identified systems. All too often, neither donors nor developing country governments are truly accountable to their citizens on the use of development resources. Significant progress towards making aid more effective requires stronger mechanisms for accountability for both donors and partner countries.
The PD sought to address this “accountability gap” by promoting a Model of Partnership to continuously improve Transparency and Accountability in the use of development resources. However, the Scorecard of PD and BD provide evidence that unless donors change the way they provide Aid and unless developing countries enhance the way they manage aid, increased Aid flows are unlikely to make serious dent into global poverty.
More than ever these Scorecards present evidence that the real PD / BD Challenge is to meaningfully Reform the way donor and partner countries work together on common objectives to make best use of limited development resources, that is PD / BD is essentially about changing Attitude and Behavior of donors and partner countries. This Change requires a Common and Systemic Approach – One Worldwide Approach described in this Paper, to Reforming the aid and cooperation system that is integral part of other ambitious systems reform – trade and investment system; justice and anti corruption system; economic and finance system; defense and security system; citizenship and leadership system as well as research and data/statistics system; planning and implementation system; monitoring and evaluation system; learning, results and measuring success system.
It is pertinent to note that stakeholder involvement in the creation of wide ranging integrated monitoring and evaluation strategies is crucial and such strategies need to effectively address capacity building (3 levels: Individual, Institution, Society on Member States, UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF and CSOs/NGOs sides) as well as priority areas for future research and evaluation. Also Developing Countries are demanding more and more coordination and harmonization among Donor Countries and International Agencies, and this includes common monitoring and evaluation plan.
It is pertinent to note further that disputes between researchers and evaluators about superiority or inferiority of quantitative versus qualitative studies, or experimental versus experiential research designs are not productive. They can lead to poor evidence or to evidence that is technically very good but of little use to policy makers or anyone else. Also much research and evaluation is flawed by unclear objectives; poor design; methodological weaknesses; inadequate statistical reporting and analysis; selective use of data and conclusions which are not supported by the data provided.
To effectively address all of these fundamental issues from Community to Global levels demand renewed commitment from Member States; UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF and CSOs/NGOs towards design and delivery of Integrated Reforms – International Development Cooperation Reform, IDCR, that Works to promote and protect Pro Poor Institutional Reforms and Pro Poor Economic Growth.
It is tempting, but dangerous to view monitoring and evaluation as having inherent value. The value of monitoring and evaluation comes from conducting monitoring and evaluation or from having such information available, rather the value comes from using it to help improve UN Member States government: executive, parliament, judiciary entities performance as well as the performance of UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF performance and CSOs/NGOs performance in the design and delivery of IDCR Policy, Program, Project Interventions, 3PIs and 3PIs Training as One, from Community to Global levels.
Decision Makers were looking to monitoring and evaluation as the strategic function to turn PD Key Principles into reality. This did not happen. It is also not happening in BD. Hence the need for reflection by Member States, UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF and CSOs/NGOs Leadership, as we enter the 2nd year of Implementation of the SDG, COP21 and AAAA.
COP22 and HLM2 are Global Platforms in November 2016 that could meaningfully kick start these Reflections that produce Results in the design and delivery of IDCR that help achieve increasing convergence between NAMA, NRMAP-Ag, NRMAP, BD, AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 Visions aligned and harmonized with Community Development Plans and Country Development Plans in each of 193/306 UN Member States.
The Integrated Reforms need to be designed and delivered within Integrated Frameworks of Assessment with focus on Monitoring, Evaluation and Assessment; Budget with focus on Finance and Programming; Competences with focus on Hard Competences: Learning and Skills and Soft Competences: Character, Courage and Mindset etc
The Integrated Reforms and Integrated Frameworks need to be operationalized in practice within Integrated Solutions – Political, Cultural, Economic, Financial, Social, Spiritual, Technical, Legal, Climate Change, Environment etc. However, the Technical and related Solutions remain meaningless if not accompanied by Political Solutions.
A distinction can and should be made between people who are users of research and evaluation and those who are doers of research and evaluation. Whilst it may be unrealistic for professional decision makers and practitioners to be competent doers of research and evaluation, it is both reasonable and necessary for such people to be able to understand and use research and evaluation in their professional practice. Integrating research and evaluation into practice is a central feature of professions.
It is getting clear that increasingly necessary competences: learning and skills, for professional policy makers and practitioners, is to know about the different kinds of economic, social and policy research and evaluation which are available; how to gain access to them, and how to critically appraise them. Without such knowledge and understanding, it is difficult to see how a strong demand for research and evaluation can be established and hence how to enhance the practical application of research and evaluation.
Joint training and professional development opportunities for policy makers and analysts may be one way of taking this forward and for match making strong demand with a good supply of appropriate evidence. This calls for strengthening Creating Demand for Evaluation and Creating Supply for Evaluation Mechanisms. It is Member States and UN System: UNO, WBG and IMF that can meaningfully address this call.
Whether the focus is on primary research or on the systematic review of existing studies, a key issue is how to communicate findings to those who need to know. The strategies used to get research and evaluation findings to their point of use involve both dissemination (pushing information from the centre outwards) and provision of access (web based and other repositories of information which research and evaluation users can tap into). Dissemination is not a single or simple process. Different messages may be required for different audiences and different time.
Governments need to continuously improve processes by which policy is made that include recommendations for increasing use of evidence. Practitioners need incentives to use evidence and to do things that have been shown to be effective. These include mechanisms to increase “pull” for evidence, such as requiring spending bids to be supported by an analysis of the existing evidence base and mechanisms to facilitate evidence use, such as integrating analytical staff at all stages of the policy development process. Also there should be Incentives that encourage Individual Performance, including Financial Rewards and Non Financial Rewards as well as Initiatives that respond to Procurement Choices thus determining which Policy, Program, Project Interventions, 3PIs and 3PI Trainings get funded.
Delivery on Promises
The 3 Global Agreements in 2015 are updated Global Agreements to ensure Results in Winning the War on Poverty and War on Terror and coming as 3 in 1 is Value Added for all Stakeholders. Monitoring and Evaluation is expected to play a strategic role in ensuring these Global Agreements are translated into reality. Monitoring and Evaluation can do this by providing evidence needed to take informed policy decisions. In this way, monitoring and evaluation plays an essential role in keeping the promise to improve the lives of billions of people across our World. The National and International Evaluation Community have a clear responsibility to deliver.
The same analysis needs to be done for Research and Data / Statistics; Planning and Implementation as well as Learning, Results and Measuring Success.
It is clear that points made in this Paper, underline lack of convergence between PD Intention and Reality and as long as these points remain unaddressed in any meaningful way, lack of convergence between Intention and Reality will remain re-occurring decimal in BD, NAMA, NRMAP-Ag, NRMAP, AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21.
(New IDCR) Reforms: Make or Break Partnerships; Partnerships: Make or Break 2030 Agenda – AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21
The current largely unhealthy / bad Partnerships demonstrate the following characteristics:-
1. The parties don’t share common values
2. The parties don’t agree on common goals, targets and indicators; once it is time to domesticate the Global Agenda at Country and Sub-national and Community levels.
3. One or both (Bilateral) / One or more (Multilateral) of the parties must compromise their convictions
4. One party selfishly demands the other party surrenders
5. One party benefits and the other loses or one party enjoys disproportional benefit at the expense of the other.
Healthy/good partnerships do not foster codependence or independence but interdependence, inter-linkages and interconnectivity. This way every party feels secure, is stretched, enjoys proportional benefits and enjoys synergy. The partnership multiplies the productivity of the parties, resulting in sustainable benefits to each party that none of the parties could achieve going it alone.
It is good Reforms that make good Partnerships and it is Good Partnerships that help achieve increasing convergence between 2030 Global Goals: AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda Vision Intention and Reality in each Community in each of 176 Countries and this includes achieving NAMA, NRMAP-Ag, NRMAP and BD Visions from Community to Global levels.
Member States and UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF New IDCR Capacity Building
In the Member States as well as the UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF New IDCR, Policy Makers and Decision Makers need to recognize that Effective and Efficient Capacity Building needs to be on 3 Levels:-
- Individual: Hard Competences – Learning and Skills and Soft Competences – Character, Courage, Discipline and Mindset.
- Institution: Systems and Processes operating at minimum certain levels of performance and productivity to support Individuals to deploy Hard and Soft Competences acquired in their day to day work.
- Society: Political, Cultural, Economic, Financial, Social, Environment, Peace, Security, Religious, Moral, Technical and Legal Space for Institutions to Thrive on Chaos.
in each of the 3 Major Blocks of Stakeholders in the New IDCR Processes that is Integral Part of the NAMA, NRMAP-Ag, NRMAP, BD, AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 aligned and harmonized with Community Development Plans and Country Development Plans in each of 193/306 Member States are: Member States; UN System – UNO, WBG, IMF and CSOs/NGOs.
Our Study Finding is that there are Research and Knowledge Gaps in each of the 3 Major Blocks that need to be filled. To achieve this, there are Capacity Building Gaps in each of the 3 major Blocks that also needs to be filled and without delay, if there is to be increasing convergence between UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF New IDCR Vision Intention and Reality that is integral part of work towards achieving increasing convergence between NAMA Vision, NRMAP-Ag Vision, NRMAP Vision, BD Vision as well as AAAA, SDG, COP21 and Agenda 21 Visions Intention and Reality in each Community in each of the 193/306 Member States. Also, Capacity Building Challenge is not only on Developing Countries side.
These Capacity Building realities on the ground challenges World Leaders and National Leaders in each of the 3 Blocks to Individually and Jointly find ways and means of continuously improving Collaboration, Cooperation, Cohesion and Coordination from Community to Global levels, because the threat of Climate Change in Agriculture and remaining identified NRMAP 8 Components are real and failure to come up with credible Community to Global Climate Change Mitigation, Resilience and Adaptation Sustainable Solutions Framework could have ultimate catastrophic consequences for our fragile Planet.
Member States and UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF New IDCR Interventions – Selecting Preferred Consultants
The Member States as well as the UN System – UNO, WBG and IMF Entities have standard guidelines for selection of Consultants. However, the UN System – UNO, WBG, IMF Procurement Process needs to appreciate the difference in regular Consulting Services Procurement such as Financial Audit where standards exist and qualified Service Providers deliver to these standards and so any Pre Qualified Consultant can deliver equally on the Assignment, therefore NO HARM is done in selecting the Lowest Financial Proposal to Definite Quantity Contract and Reform Consulting Services Procurement.
In Reform Consulting Services Procurement, such as Policy Reform where no standards exist and Innovation and Creativity are Keys and so all Pre Qualified Consultants cannot deliver equally on the Assignment, therefore MUCH HARM is usually done in selecting the Lowest Financial Proposal, if this does not coincide with the Highest Technical Proposal. Thus, the selection of Preferred Consultant that consistently Deliver Good Reform Policies, Programs, Projects, continues to pose major Challenge for UN System Entities and Member States.
The New International Development Cooperation Reform, IDCR, covering all Reforms identified above, that would help UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF achieve increasing convergence between NAMA Vision, NRMAP-Ag Vision, NRMAP Vision, BD Vision that is integral part of 2030 Agenda – AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 aligned and harmonized with Community Development Plans and Country Development Plans in each of 193/306 UN Member States needs to have New Procurement Processes, with New Rules that effectively respond to this difference and in ways that ensure Accountability is effectively promoted and protected through ensuring that each Preferred Consultant deliver on promise made in their Technical Proposal. This way Preferred Consultants who consistently deliver flawed or failed Technical Proposals are no longer rewarded with renewed Patronage and Procurement Commissioners and Managers who consistently select Preferred Consultants who consistently deliver flawed or failed Technical Proposals are sanctioned.
New GPEDC Member Category
The Top Aid Agencies in our World today are listed as UNDP OEDC Joint Support Team Contributing Members. Also Top International Institutions within and outside the UN System: UNO, WBG and IMF are listed as International Organizations adhering to the BD. There is a need for UNFCCC to be included in this list and there is a need for Top Consulting Firms with demonstrated Hard Competences: Learning and Skills and Sift Competences: Learning and Skills to support Aid Agencies, International Institutions Internal and External Publics in the work towards achieving BD Vision Intention and Reality in each Community in each of 193/306 UN Member States.
Bad News and Good News
That the type of gaps identified in this paper exists 5 years after BD is Bad News. That GPEDC create space for frank and truthful dialogue on sustainable solutions to the real and complex BD problems on the ground is good news. Every effort needs to be made towards ensuring that Activities, before, during and after HLM2 help bring about Transformation our World deserves.
Agriculture Cooperatives and other Cooperatives
There is a Cooperatives Dimension of NAMA, NRMAP-Ag, NRMAP, BD, AAAA, SDG, COP21 and Agenda 21 Visions. An Experts Group Meeting that is a UN Event is being organized for 16 – 17 November 2016. It will be helpful if the EGM can submit a Discussion Paper to HLM2 Organizers that could help enrich HLM2 Outcome.
Saddling CSOs/NGOs with Consulting Duties and Responsibilities
The Member States and UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF often saddle CSOs/NGOs with Consulting Duties and Responsibilities in the work towards achieving NAMA, NRMAP-Ag, NRMAP, BD, AAAA, SDG, COP21 and Agenda 21 Visions aligned and harmonized with Community Development Plans and Country Development Plans in each of 193/306 UN Member States. Our study finding is that in doing this, ostensibly to save fund, Member States and UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF are in reality losing because, in most cases, the CSOs/NGOs are operating at their levels of incompetence. Moving forward CSOs/NGOs should be saddled with Duties and Responsibilities within their areas of Competence – Hard Competences: Learning and Skills and Soft Competences: Character, Courage Discipline and Mindset and Consultants (Internal and External) should be saddled with Duties and Responsibilities within their areas of Hard Competences and Soft Competences.
Development Cooperation is Ineffective Versus Development Cooperation is Effective
The dispute between Academics, Researchers, Practitioners and Professionals that Development Cooperation is Ineffective or Effective are not productive. They can distract from focus on achieving increasing convergence between NAMA, NRMAP-Ag, NRMAP, BD, AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 Vision Ambitions in each Community in each of 193/306 UN Member States by 2030 Target date. Should work towards achieving these Visions Ambitions be guided by the paradigm shifts, other good ideas and suggestions harvested from Global Consultation leading to HLM2 as well as good ideas and suggestions harvested from HLM2 itself, the dispute will simply atrophy should all concerned Community to Global Stakeholders genuinely commit to keeping promises freely made to each other.
GPEDC, BD and 2030 Global Goals: AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 – Acid Test of Credibility
The Acid Test of Credibility of the 2030 Global Goals: AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 is How it Delivers from Community to Global levels:-
- Better Agriculture Crops, Livestock, Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture Information Services, Cooperatives Services and Commodity Markets
- Better Innovation and Creativity in Climate Change Resilience, Mitigation and Adaptation Solutions Management as well as in the Optimization of Climate Change Gains and Minimization of Climate Change Losses.
- Better Trade, Aid, Debts, Anti Corruption and Anti Terror Solutions Management
- Better Multi Stakeholder Partnerships for Driving Policy, Program, Project Interventions, 3PIs and 3PIs Training as One within (1) – (3)
New UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF Vision – Paradigm Shifts
It is clear that in the work towards transforming UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF into Institutions Fit for the 21st Century, the UN System needs to be Reformed within a New UN System Vision. In the work towards achieving increasing convergence between New UN System: UNO, WBG and IMF Vision, Mission and Mandate that effectively reinforce UN System - UNO, WBG, IMF Delivery as One, as the UN System work better towards achieving 2030 Agenda - AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 Visions by 2030 Target date, there is a need for UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF Internal and External Publics to have genuine recognition that; our world today needs a paradigm shift from Talking and Thinking to Action and Accomplishments for Results.
That is at the community level, at the sub-national level, at the country level, at the sub-regional level, at the regional level, and at the global level, we all need to make these things happen:
a) jointly making paradigm shifts from working in silos to working intersectorially in synergy;
b) from multiple approaches to common approaches that continuously improve convergence, alignment and harmony;
c) from business as usual to business unusual;
d) from parrotting change to practicing change;
e) from academic research aimed at advancing frontiers of knowledge to development research aimed at significant improvement in critical contemporary measures of service, speed, costs, quality and where necessary revenue;
f) from talking and thinking to Action and Accomplishment.
A platform such as the IMF 2016 Annual Research Conference, ARC and similar Platforms in IMF as well as in remaining UN System Entities: UNO and WBG, is a Global Public Good that helps all parties engage in dialogue and agree on way-forward actions. As similar Paper was released during the IMF 2016 ARC, we await release of IMF 2016 ARC Outcome Document to see how much of these ideas and suggestions have been accepted for implementation by the IMF.
COP22 opens this morning. It is our hope that COP22 Outcome Document would include many of the ideas and suggestions set out in this Paper. HLM2 opens in few weeks. It is our hope that HLM2 Outcome Document would include many of the ideas and suggestions set out in this Paper.
One Worldwide Approach
We note that there are different approaches, visions, models and tools available to each country to achieve NRMAP in all its 9 Components including Agriculture, Infrastructure, Health – Plant, Animal, Human etc; BD; AAAA; SDG; COP21 and Agenda 21, in accordance with its national circumstances and priorities as well as its own development context. However, if there is to be continuously improving collaboration, cooperation, cohesion and coordination in the design and delivery of Policy, Program, Project Interventions, 3PIs and 3PIs Training as One, a need arises for United Community to Global Visions whose implementation and evaluation is built upon One Worldwide Approach that is a Common and Systemic Approach for improving Ownership, Alignment, Harmony etc that has clear Principles, Instruments / Tools corresponding to each Principle, Practices and Database. The New UN System: UNO, WBG and IMF IDCR Vision needs to coincide with such United Community to Global Vision and needs to effectively connect each Community in each of the 193/306 Member States to UNO Headquarters New York, WBG Headquarters Washington, IMF Headquarters Washington, FAO/IFAD Headquarters Rome and ILO Headquarters Rome.
3PCM is an Advance One Worldwide Approach that is sufficiently all inclusive, all embracing and ambitious to meet the implementation as well as evaluation demands of an all inclusive, all embracing and ambitious SDGs, that is essentially the over-arching 2030 Global Agenda and which in reality includes NAMA, NRMAP-Ag, NRMAP, BD, AAAA, COP21 and Agenda 21 Visions.
Innovation and Creativity are Keys as we face Community to Global Challenges of Modernization and Climate Change in the 21st Century.
The correct answers to SDG, AAAA, COP21 etc How questions could be found first, in selecting One Worldwide Approach, and second in establishing Pilot Programs to test good ideas and pertinent suggestions harvested from Global Consultations and Scale Up Programs at National, Regional and Global levels for ideas and suggestions that Pilot Programs identify as Working.
As long as Stakeholders continue to use multiple, sometimes divergent Approaches and as long as ideas and suggestions cannot be tested to determine what works and how it could be expanded and what is not working and how it could be corrected, it would be uphill task achieving increasing convergence between New UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF Vision Intention and Reality that is Integral Part of Member States Visions Intention and Reality as well as CSOs/NGOs Visions Intention and Reality – a condition for saving our Fragile Plant from imminent self destruction.
In the work towards achieving the 2030 Agenda Vision ambitions by Target date, fundamental issues that ought to have been settled by end 1st quarter 2015, that is, 6 months before World Leaders endorsed the historic document are still outstanding in 4th quarter 2016, that is, 13 months after the SDGs have been endorsed.
There are Bright Prospects of Success, should UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF entities genuinely commit towards implementing this New IDCR in ways that meaningfully address Climate Change and Agriculture real and complex problems on the ground from Community to Global levels, since 2/3 of the World Poor have their livelihoods linked to Agriculture and should Stakeholders in 3 identified Blocks – Member States, UN System- UNO, WBG, IMF and CSOs/NGOs, willingly join and actively participate in the New IDCR Activities in ways that promote and protect the Common Interest and Common Future of Citizens in all UN Member States.
International Society for Poverty Elimination / Economic Alliance Group
Akure – Nigeria, West – Africa.
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org 7 November 2016.