ISPE EAG
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?
Executive Summary
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.
Key Points
The highlights of the Paper are need for Paradigm Shifts.
Conclusion
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.
Main Paper
Introduction
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?
Integrated Reforms
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.
Integrated Frameworks
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
Integrated Solutions
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.
Utilization
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.
Dissemination
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.
Incentives
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.
Way Forward
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.
Conclusion
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.
Contact:
Director General
International Society for Poverty
Elimination / Economic Alliance Group
Akure – Nigeria, West – Africa.
M: +234-8162469805
Email: nehap.initiative@yahoo.co.uk 7 November 2016.
