You must have Javascript enabled to use this form.

Sie sind hier

CSO Partnership

Newsfeed CSO Partnership abonnieren CSO Partnership
Aktualisiert: vor 10 Stunden 14 Minuten

Working Group on CSO Enabling Environment Preparing for the Third Monitoring Round

1. Februar 2018 - 9:03


The Working Group has been very active since November with activities broadly relating to the expected Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) Third Monitoring Round.  This Monitoring Round is expected to be launched May 2018 and will conduct country level monitoring until October 2018. This Third GPEDC Monitoring in monitoring will be based on a revised Monitoring Framework that will be approved by the GPEDC Steering Committee at its April meeting.  This revised Framework, including Indicator Two on CSO Enabling Environment, will be subject to a consultation with all stakeholders in the GPEDC before the SC meeting.

For information about the GPEDC’s Monitoring Framework, click here.

The Working Group, with the support of the Global Secretariat and the Regional Secretariats, launched a call to seek nominations for CPDE country Focal Points for Indicator Two.  Fifty-eight (58) country focal points for Indicator Two have been confirmed for all regions, with more to come from the Pacific Region.  These Focal Points will engage Government Country Coordinators, who will be leading the Third Monitoring Round, on an inclusive data collection and verification process with civil society on Indicator Two at the country level as well as dialogue around the implications of this data for civic space in their countries

Four CPDE members of the Working Group, who are also members of the multi-stakeholder Task Team on CSO Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment, participated in a November 2017 meeting of a multi-stakeholder Reference Group on revisions for Indicator Two, organized by the GPEDC’s Joint Support Team (JST).

For this Reference Group meeting, the JST used a draft revised Indicator Two Framework, which was proposed by our Working Group, and which was developed with the Working Group on Development Effectiveness at an Working Group Experts Meeting held in Paris early in July 2017.

Following the November Reference Group meeting, the JST has undertaken significant development of this Indicator Two Framework based on input from the stakeholders, including CPDE participants.  This revised Framework will now be put back to the Reference Group for their comment and to a wider GPEDC consultation.

The major change in the Framework is the development of a four-level scale, relating to a range of bad to good practice, for each of the questions in each module.  The advantage of this scaled approach is that the monitoring will capture more nuances in country situations. We also hope that discussions (with civil society and with government) about where to place a given country on a scale may provoke some policy discussion among stakeholders.

A major activity for the Working Group up to April 2018 is the organization of training of the Focal Points on the revised Indicator Two.  The first training will bring select focal points from Africa, Asia and Europe to Nairobi at the end of January. This will be a hands-on training with the revised Framework received.  The Co-Chairs for the Working Group on CSO Development Effectiveness will also join the training as facilitators as CSO development effectiveness is an important module in Indicator Two.  A second Focal Point training will be organized in March, which will bring Focal Points from the Pacific, the Americas and MENA regions, as well as any others that our budget allow us to accommodate.  These are bilingual training in French/English and Spanish/English.

With this advanced preparations and training for country Focal Points, we expect that CPDE will be well placed to make a significant impact with respect to its priority to highlight and advocate for a reversal to the shrinking civil society space at the country level through the next Monitoring Round.

For more information, contact: Brian Tomlinson |


Kategorien: english, Ticker

IPs highlight the importance of winning local struggles in building international solidarity

28. Januar 2018 - 10:53

For the first time, the International Civil Society Week (ICSW), a key global gathering for civil society and other stakeholders to engage constructively in finding common solutions to global challenges, was held in the Pacific Region following the campaign to highlight the effects of climate change on small islands.

Aptly relevant to Fiji, the ICSW held annually by the CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation was co-hosted by the Pacific Islands Association of NGO’s (PIANGO) from 4-8 December in Suva, Fiji with the theme “Our Planet. Our Struggle. Our Future.”

The week’s programme consisted of a youth assembly, concurrent events, cultural festivities, and networking events that built up to the CIVICUS world assembly.
IPMSDL, as one of the event partners, sponsored a forum entitled Self-Determination and Liberation in the Pacific. The forum, organized in partnership with Dewan Adat Papua and Land is Life, served as a space for organizations from the different island states in the region to share their struggles for self-determination and liberation and to establish solidarity among these nations through the introduction of Merdeka (West Papua Support Committee), which was initially launched during a study conference in Davao City, Philippines last March.

The discussion on West Papua included the roots of conflict, the civil and political rights situation under Indonesian occupation – including the social and cultural rights, and the resistance movements formed in response to the injustices. The speakers from the Solomon Islands highlighted the rampant corruption, gender inequality, and foreign take-over of indigenous lands in their islands and how the struggle for self-determination in SI roots back to the Malaitans’ aspiration of governing themselves free from British interference. The sharing from Kanaky featured some individuals who made notable contributions to their independence movements such as political activist Jean-Marie Tijbaou.

From these stories, there existed a common theme of indigenous peoples’ marginalisation in their own lands – from issues colonization and repression to modern-day deprivation of basic social services, freedom of speech, militarism, harassment, killings, and so on. These are the same issues from years ago that brought about a rich history of resistance and liberation movements in these island states and led to the formation of various people’s organisation as it is known today.

Referring to one of the interventions during the forum, Longid said that although participants may live in the same region of the world, this does not necessarily mean that everyone is aware of what each nation is going through and this accentuates the significance of having avenues such as the forum for building international solidarity. She further said that while we can express our support for the struggle of other nations in various ways, facing and winning local battles are also one of the best means to urge other nations to win their own struggles.

“Legal battles are limited and constrained without the support of our mass movement on the ground”, Longid stressed.

By the end of the programme, the delegates wrote down on paper their call to actions and insights based on the discussion to support the struggles of West Papua and the Pacific Island states; among these are “your liberation is our liberation”, “strengthen our partnerships amongst peoples who are also struggling for self-determination”, “self-determination is peoples’ right and government responsibility”, and “[to] liberate our land and resources is [to] liberate our life”.

For more information, contact: Beverly Longid |

Kategorien: english, Ticker

CSO recommendations on the DAC’s new purpose code for the “Facilitation of Orderly, Safe, Regular and Responsible Migration and Mobility”

25. Januar 2018 - 6:43

This submission has been prepared collectively by a group of civil society organisations from the global south and the global northi. With this paper, we present joint recommendations to the DAC regarding the development of a new reporting code for the “Facilitation of Orderly, Safe, Regular and Responsible Migration and Mobility” (DCD/DAC/STAT(2017)23/REV2), which aim at protecting the integrity of Official Development Assistance (ODA).

Increasing domestic pressure in many donor countries to stem migration from developing countries is putting ODA at risk of being instrumentalized for the benefit of donor countries. With migration-related activities becoming more and more predominant in many donors’ development rhetoric and policies, it is critical that the DAC strengthen its oversight and reporting tools to monitor how this translates at the level of donor programs and projects, and to ensure that these indeed “promote the economic development and welfare of developing countries” and do not “pursue first and foremost providers’ interest (e.g. restricting migration)”.

In this regard, the proposed new reporting code for the “Facilitation of Orderly, Safe, Regular and Responsible Migration and Mobility” under discussion at the DAC could potentially improve ODA tracking. We however wish to draw DAC members’ attention to the importance of carefully assessing and discussing this proposal, given that it will carry important political and policy implications for the integrity of ODA.

We welcome the DAC’s efforts to better track migration-related activities:

We believe that a new code, if designed and implemented carefully, will enable more transparency and better tracking of donors’ support to such activities.

We also welcome the DAC’s effort to align the code’s wording with that of SDG 10.7.

We are glad that many of the activities covered by the code aim at improving the conditions and rights of people on the move (e.g. “maximise the development impact of migration”, “reduction of vulnerability of migrant workers”, “support to trade unions, CSOs and the media”, “support to mainstream protection and assistance to refugees”, “ensure access to justice and assistance for internally displaced persons”).

We acknowledge the important reaffirmation that “Only those activities whose primary purpose/motivation is to promote the economic development and welfare of developing countries qualify as ODA. Activities that pursue first and foremost providers’ interests (e.g. restricting migration) are excluded from ODA” (§10).

We also welcome the commitment to a specific review by the DAC Secretariat in 2019 to scrutinize and assess the eligibility of projects reported by DAC donors under this new code.

However, in our view, the proposed code is a de facto expansion of ODA, and poses important risks for the integrity of ODA:

We worry that this reporting code opens the door for DAC members to report as ODA activities that serve donors’ interests rather than the sustainable development of developing partner countries and the poorest and most vulnerable people, through the inclusion of activities conducted for “mutual benefit”. The latest draft, which implicitly allows inclusion of activities conducted for “mutual benefit”, risks diluting the core principle that ODA’s primary purpose should be to promote the economic development and welfare of countries in the global south.ii

We consider that the creation of this new code, allowing the reporting as ODA for a broad range of migration-related and mobility containment activities, constitutes an expansion of ODA eligibility and we worry that it is meant to broaden ODA eligibility of recent donor programs, such as the EU Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing root causes of irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa (‘the EUTF Africa’). Existing reporting rules do not explicitly mention many of the migration-related activities that are included under the new code. The DAC’s Converged Statistical Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System only refer to “immigration” and “migrants” twice: in the context of security-related activities, and in the context of in-donor refugee costsiii. Some donors are already reporting on projects that may be eligible under the new code, including “enhancing the development impact of remittances”; “improv[ing] migrant labour recruitment systems”; and “policy development… to address irregular migration” under existing general purpose codes such as 130, 150, 151 and 160iv. However, these existing reporting codes do not explicitly allow for such operations to be counted. In particular, reported projects involving diaspora include components involving communities in donor countries or encouragement of diaspora from donor countries to return to countries of originv. This new code 151xx thereby crosses a line in explicitly saying that these activities are eligible.

We are concerned about the eligibility of measures to “address irregular migration”, especially due to the inclusion of capacity building for “legal and judicial development, including border management”. Irregular migration has no clear or universally accepted definition and may refer to any movement across borders outside regulatory norms. Unlike smuggling and trafficking, it is not a crime and fighting it through legal reform will not bring development Fighting smuggling and trafficking is currently eligible in DAC reporting, within the existing limits of support to security forcesvii. But adopting a similar approach to irregular movement will only serve the interests of European and other donor countries in stemming migration. Furthermore, it is counter to development efforts to stigmatise irregular migrants by aggregating them with smugglers and traffickers, or making their mobility illegal, rather than working to make it safe and orderly. We worry that including this stigmatizing terminology in the new reporting code may allow donors to report as ODA projects that support judicial and legal reforms to criminalise irregular movement or prevent victims of abuses from fleeing the countries in which they are persecuted, with the long-term result of undermining development goals in hope to stem migration flows to European and other donor countries.viii The right response should be about protection of migrants, rather than restrictions. 

We are concerned that the inclusion of activities to support the return and reintegration of migrants risks blurring the line between development and the migration agenda. In particular, we are concerned about the deletion of the word “voluntarily” from the sentence “assistance to migrants voluntarily returning to their country of origin”. This concern is strengthened by the example of eligible activities: “Sustainable reintegration of migrants returning from a donor or developing country to their country of origin”.

While returnees are often vulnerable and may require assistance, returns and integration programmes should only be ODA-eligible if they fit within other purpose codes. In the recent past, several returns programmes have been designed to pressure migrants, including asylum seekers, to give up on legal rights and refugee status, in exchange for post-return assistance.ix Support for return and reintegration should only be ODA eligible if it fits in a program of assistance based on needs and vulnerabilities, not based on migratory status and, therefore, should be captured and reported under another relevant purpose code. In this context, we consider the use of the term “countries of origin” to be problematic. Geographic allocation of development aid must be in accordance with development needs; a country or region’s potential to be a source of outward migration in itself is not an appropriate criterion for receiving aid.

The new code bundles together projects aiming to contain mobility with projects that aim to make it safer and easier. Without a clear distinction between projects aimed at reducing movement and those aiming at improving it, commitment to development aid objectives is confused and at risk. We worry this will obscure reporting in the case of programs such as the EUTF Africa, under which only 3% of migration-related projects are dedicated to developing, or supporting African authorities to develop, orderly, safe and responsible migration, while more than half of this budget is allocated to restricting and discouraging migrationx.

We worry that the scope of activities to “improve migrant labour recruitment systems” could be interpreted too broadly, leading to the inclusion within ODA of activities that have adverse consequences for migrant workers’ rights. The human rights risks facing migrant workers have been extensively documented.xi While we recognise that many activities under the proposed code would seek to reduce such abuses, ‘’improvement’’ of recruitment systems is open to interpretation, and could also encompass activities that make the system more efficient for recruiters, irrespective of whether they respect the human rights of migrants.

Based on the above, and in order to protect the integrity of ODA, promote its accountable use, and increase its transparency, we urge DAC members to:

  1. Extend the timeline for approval of this new reporting code, to enable further discussion and proper consultation with key stakeholders, such as partner countries, CSOs, and expert agencies such as the UNHCR, IOM, UNDESA. We are glad to see that the Secretariat included a proposal to commit to review the purpose code to ensure its consistency with what will be agreed at the 2018 Global Compact on Migration, and to closely monitor the implementation and verify the eligibility of projects reported under the new code. We ask that this review be conducted in consultation not only with relevant UN agencies, but also with civil society organisations and partner countries.
  2. Reinstate language that excludes “cooperation between developed and developing countries on various aspects of migration for a mutual benefit”, to align with the core requirement that ODA should prioritise the economic development and welfare of countries in the global south.
  3. Remove the word “regular” in the title and body of the code and remove the reference to “irregular migration” in the context of strategy and policy development to address smuggling and trafficking, in order to avoid using ODA to make mobility illegal.
  1. Keep reporting on projects aiming at ending trafficking in humans, especially women and children, under existing codes 15160 and 15180 in order to ensure alignment with the text and context of SDGs 5.2, 8.7 and 16.2, and proper DAC guidance, informed by development objectives and human rights, not migration control.
  2. Delete the reference to “addressing the root causes of migration” and replace it with “addressing root causes of forced displacement”, which was the wording used by in the recent OECD publication on Addressing forced displacement through development planning and assistance.
  1. Remove the reference to assistance to return and to sustainable reintegration in“countries of origin”, to ensure that aid is allocated based on needs identified under other purpose codes, and not according to donors’ migration-related priorities.
  1. Maintain the clarification that this purpose code only includes support to the development objectives of developing countries on the DAC list of ODA recipients, and explicitly excludes in-donor refugee costs.
  2. Explicitly state that any activities to “improve migrant labour recruitment systems’’ should only be included within ODA if they put in place or increase safeguards to ensure that the rights of migrants are respected and protected.


With the support of Concord Europe

  • Please see the list of CSOs endorsing this statement at the end of the document 
  • As work on untying has shown, activities conducted for ‘mutual benefit’ can in fact seriously constrain development impact for countries in the south. Eurodad, ‘Unravelling Tied Aid’ (September 2017). Available at:
  • First, in the section on peace and security-related activities (Section II.8), which explains that support to partner country police includes “support to law enforcement agencies that exercise police powers, especially the power of arrest and detention within a broader rule-of-law system (such bodies may include immigration/border, customs and other specialist civilian law enforcement agencies)”. Second, in the recently adopted changes to the section on in-donor refugee costs, which clarifies that “People in-transit, irregular and regular migrants who have not declared their intent to seek asylum, are not refugees and related costs are not eligible as ODA”.
  • See for example
  • See for example: and
  • For more detail please see Oxfam’s paper on Tackling the root causes of the narrative on migration and development
  • See DAC reporting guidelines, §99 (on support to police) and 113 (on peacekeeping operations).
  • See, in particular, the EU’s financial support to Libyan border management in an attempt to stem migration:
  • See, recently, the situation of asylum seekers in Greece forced to choose between the right to appeal a decision on their refugee status and their eligibility for a returns package: pdf
  • Oxfam, ‘An Emergency for Whom? The EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa – migratory routes and development aid in Africa’ (November 2017). Available at:
  • MADE Network, ‘Situational analysis: the smuggling of Togolese migrant workers and people trafficking in the Middle East and Central Africa’ (2017). Available at: Human Rights Watch, ‘Working Like a Robot’

(2017), and ‘Red Card’ (2017). Both available at:

Kategorien: english, Ticker

Faith Based Constituency: Regional Faith Based Development Organisations Training on Development Effectiveness  

19. Januar 2018 - 4:19

On 15-19 January 2018, the country directors, advocacy officers as well as key scholars from the Faith Based Constituency of CPDE from Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania gathered in Uganda. They were drawn from ACT Alliance, Caritas Internationalis, Islamic Relief World Wide and Lutheran World Federation. Other invited organisations included the African Council of Religious Leaders as well as representatives from key youth and women groups within the Faith constituency. The occasion was the Regional Faith-based Development Organisations Training on Development Effectiveness.

From the discussions in Uganda, it is apparent that not enough has been done to build the technical capacity of Faith-based development actors. This has hindered their critical role in engaging with the available opportunities offered by the governments and development partners in the East African region in regard to the domestication of the development effectiveness agenda at the national level through Sector Advisory Groups and annual budget consultations. There is also lack of information on the implication of GPEDC outcome documents on the role of CSOs as “independent development actors”. In addition to filling the gaps highlighted above, the meeting also sort to re- energize members of Faith based organisations in fulfilling their commitments in monitoring the progress of implementation of the SDG agenda.

The participants were taken through key discussions on the shifting understanding of development and human rights based approach, the background to effective development cooperation and the move from aid effectiveness to development effectiveness. Key Principles of Effective Development Cooperation (EDC) was also brought up. Of importance was also the key outcome, commitments and indicators of the High Level Meeting 2 and the role of different stakeholders including government, private sector, donors, CSOs within the context of EDC. Many did also not know of the Istanbul Principles and CSOs accountability and the importance of CSOs accountability to the Localisation of Aid Agenda. Concrete outcomes came up that are considered steps of bringing the Faith-based communities closer to the development agenda in the region.

For more information, contact: Catherine Njugun |


Kategorien: english, Ticker

COSADER launches project on development and implementation of civil society Code of Ethics and Standards

1. Januar 2018 - 6:38

Following a call for proposals to implement country focused projects by the Global Civil Society Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE), COSADER was selected through a competitive process to implement its project on the theme “Elaboration of a code of ethics and conduct for the organisation of the civil society sector” in Cameroon.

This project seeks to strengthen the effectiveness of Cameroonian CSOs through the development of a collective standard on ethics and accountability. Issues of promoting accountability, legitimacy and effectiveness on the part of civil society have been at the centre of governance debates in the civil society sector in Cameroon.

It is anticipated that participating CSOs from all the 10 regions of Cameroon shall be actively involved in the process of developing the Code of Ethics and Standards document by setting minimum standards on issues including governance, internal operations, programs, fundraising, communication in line with the 5th Principle of Istanbul, that calls on transparency and responsibility on the part of civil society if they want to be effective as actors of development. This will be followed by a process of engaging with participating CSOs to adhere to the agreed principles and standards which shall all be geared towards creating a more conducive environment, build trust and public reputation for a sector characterised by a growing number of diverse actors and a number of malpractices.

For more information, contact: Christine Andela |


Kategorien: english, Ticker

Kiribati CSOs engages in SDG voluntary review processes in preparation for HLPF 2018

1. Januar 2018 - 6:38

PIANGO (Pacific Islands Association of NGOs) Executive Director, Emele Duituturaga who was in Kiribati earlier this week attended the Voluntary National Review (VNR) multi-stake holder consultation led the by the Kiribati government deserves support.

“Kiribati has already begun its preparations for the July High Level Political Forum (HLPF) in earnest and we were pleased to note government’s efforts to be inclusive of Kiribati’s civil society in its planning and preparations,” Duituturaga said.

VNRs is a voluntary and part of follow-up and review mechanisms of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development led by member states conducted regularly and an inclusive manner at the national and sub-national levels.

The voluntary national reviews (VNRs) aim to facilitate the sharing of experiences, including successes, challenges and lessons learned, with a view to accelerating the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The VNRs also seek to strengthen policies and institutions of governments and to mobilize multi-stakeholder support and partnerships for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Duituturaga said she was pleased to note that a VNR Task Force had been established and was confident that civil society would be represented in its composition.

One of the SDGs targets is the establishment of multistakeholder partnerships recognising the vast resources needed to foot the complex development challenges. Multistakeholder platforms for VNRs represents a sign of governments’ willingness to be transparent, accountabe and inclusive in the process of SDG reviews.

Duituturaga said the PIANGO team also met with other CSO leaders to encourage CSO coordination and collaboration across the sector.

“This included attending the launching of the Red Cross Society Strategic Plan 2018 -2020 and a courtesy briefing with His Excellency, the Kiribati President.”
Duituturaga said PIANGO would continue to work with KANGO in the lead up to HLPF in July in New York.

Duituturaga said PIANGO would continue to work with KANGO in the lead up to HLPF in July in New York.

“Our support to our members and partners for SDGs and policy influencing is made possible with the contribution of PIFs, European Union, Bread for the World and the International Forum for National NGO Platforms.”

For more information, contact: Vani Catanasiga |


Kategorien: english, Ticker

Girl-child advocacy given attention in EU’s development policy

20. Dezember 2017 - 4:27

European Union is known to have a strong position on Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG). However, this position does not equally address all women, with migrant and refugee women often falling between the legal cracks in the protection and prevention measures.  In 2017 European Commission held a year of focused action to combat VAWG. The same year the EU, jointly with the UN,  committed to establishing a joint multi donor trust fund (Spot-Light Initiative) intended to combat the global scourge of violence against women and girls and highlight the role of gender equality as a driver for the achievement of all Sustainable Development Goals. At the same time 2017 was the year when two important global frameworks began to be established as a response to the increasing voluntary and forced movement of people – the Global Compact on Refugees and the Global Compact on Migration.

It is the position of European Network of Migrant Women, that that the two compacts, that have not been yet finalised, present an important opportunity for the global community to re-think traditional masculine approach to migration. With more and more women and girls leaving their homes because of economic, safety and security reasons, it is crucial that all negotiations on the two compacts account for the sex-based discrimination as one of the leading causes for women seeking asylum, the situations of heightened vulnerability which women-on-the-move experience in their journeys and the endemic male violence they fall victims of. Apart from acknowledging the status of women as ‘victims’, it is not less important that the two compacts recognise women as leaders, decision-makers and equal negotiators.

In line with these objectives European Network of Migrant Women partnered with CARE International UK, European Council on Refugees and Exiles, Melissa Migrant Women Network Greece and Women Refugee Route, supported by CPDE, to deliver an advocacy action on the Refugee Girl-Child. This specific focus on young female refugees is not accidental. Too often the frameworks on children fail to acknowledge the fundamental differences in the experience between girls and boys. With practically all forms of Gender Based Violence starting at an early age and with the Girl Child established as a specific area of concern by the Beijing Platform for Action in 1995, we thought it was a high time to draw attention of the policy makers to the situation of young females, the obstacles their face and the opportunities they miss. We also thought it important to highlight the leadership potential of young female refugees.

Firstly, on 7 December we organised a conference in Brussels, ahead of the UN High Level Dialogue on Refugees where the Global Compact was set to be discussed. The conference was hosted by the Swedish Permanent Representation to the UN and brought together relevant policy-makers from EU institutions, Council of Europe, our partner NGOs and our members. In this event we addressed, in a cross sectoral way, the various gaps in policy, services and funding that expose prevent young female migrants to gender-based risks and deprive them of exercising their human rights. We also highlighted the good practices developed by migrant & refugee women led organisations that cater for women and girls refugees in Europe. The Swedish government, with its Feminist Foreign Policy, supported us in positioning women’s needs and leadership in the spot-light ahead of the negotiations in Geneva.

Report from Swedish Mission can be found here:

Following this, we went to Geneva, where with the help of CARE, we first hosted a round table discussion on the same subject, facilitated by the Canadian mission, with the representatives of the EU member states to the UN, UNHCR, and a number of International NGOs. After the round table we attended the High Commissioner’s Dialogue on Protection Challenges: Towards the Global Compact on Refugees  where, despite quite limiting opportunities for intervention, we managed to establish important connections with a pool of multi-sectoral actors involved in the negotiations on the Global Compacts.

With both Compacts still being negotiated our advocacy action on Girl-Child is not over. We are working on the final policy recommendations and the Video to accompany this action.

For more information, contact: Anna Zobnina,  , European Network of Migrant Women


Kategorien: english, Ticker

CPDE members participate in the FfD Strategic Planning Session

14. Dezember 2017 - 10:59

CPDE members ActionAid, IBON International, and RoA Africa participated in the Civil Society Financing for Development (FfD) Group Strategic Planning Session which aims at strategising common positions of CSOs in the forthcoming FfD forum in April. The CSO meeting was held 11-13 October. Read the briefing paper below:

Towards the universal application of the effectiveness principles

What is the role of the effective development framework in the universal development agenda?

Development effectiveness provides a comprehensive framework for sustainable action in the fight against poverty, climate change, inequality and marginalisation. As such, it helps to advance the rights and welfare of people and communities sustainably and with optimum participation.
Towards achieving development effectiveness, better development cooperation remains crucial. Effective Development Co-operation (EDC) allows for a partnership that ensures ownership, accountability and delivery of results to people, includes all the different sectors of society and uses development cooperation policies and tools. This partnership is consistent with agreed international commitments on human rights, decent work, gender equality, environmental sustainability and disability.

In the overall process of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the Financing for Development commitments, the CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) calls for the universal application of EDC in order to apply principles of democratic ownership, results focus, inclusive partnerships, transparency & accountability to all interventions. This corresponds to the Addis Ababa Action Agenda’s emphasis on the primary role of national policies and development strategies and on the need to maximize the impact of development cooperation through these principles. It means that all development co-operation actors must be held accountable that they accomplish their commitments, respect each country’s leadership and policy space and sufficiently raise the bar to effect change.

Read the complete paper here.

Read other briefing papers here.

Kategorien: english, Ticker