China aid Cambodian flood victims: Soldiers carry Chinese flood relief items at Phnom Penh airport, Cambodia in October. Photograph: Mak Remissa/EPA
The Guardian
The UK
Beijing's blunt rejection of the principle of transparency does not bode well for agreement at possibly the biggest aid summit yet
China must take the prize for sheer cheek in the current discussions on a final document for the Busan conference in South Korea on aid effectiveness.
With just two weeks to go, the pace is picking up among negotiators to hammer out an "outcome document" on the future direction of aid, or development cooperation as many prefer to call it. Another session is scheduled in Paris on Friday, bringing together the "sherpas" – aid officials from rich and poor countries – to try to bridge the clear philosophical gaps that have emerged.
Transparency on aid flows – how much money is being provided, where and how it is being spent and how it should be monitored – is one of the crucial issues for Busan, which promises to be the biggest aid conference yet. About 2,000 delegates are expected to attend, including Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, and Andrew Mitchell, the UK international development secretary.
The sherpas have to come up with a document that satisfies their masters, and transparency and accountability are a major source of contention. The UK, Nordic countries and the EU, as well as civil society organisations, prize transparency and want a strong commitment on this in the final document. Not China, an increasingly powerful player in the international aid architecture. China's aid has been estimated at $25bn but as it does not publish official figures, no one knows for sure.
China's attitude on transparency was laid bare in a summary of discussions on the outcome document in Paris earlier this month, as seen by the Guardian. At a meeting chaired by Enna Park, director general of South Korea's foreign ministry, China bluntly stated that the "principle of transparency should apply to north-south cooperation, but that it should not be seen as a standard for south-south cooperation". That is not just the diplomatic equivalent of throwing down the gauntlet to the established donors' club of the development assistance committee (Dac), but of smacking them in the face with it.
Beijing's position shows how hard it will be at the fourth high level forum (HLF4) on aid effectiveness to bring coherence to the cluttered marketplace for aid, where traditional donors from the west jostle not just with the rising powers, China, India, Brazil and South Korea, but with private foundations that donated $53bn in 2009. Busan is supposed to build on previous conferences in Paris and Accra and their core principles – ownership, harmonisation, alignment, managing for results and mutual accountability. But the more ambitious goal is to reach global agreement on basic principles to govern all major forms of development finance.
China is not the only one challenging the Paris-Accra consensus. Brazil, another proponent of south-south cooperation, is content to stay outside the Paris principles, maintaining that its aid programmes are driven by "solidarity" rather than strategic goals, as in the case of the US and Britain, although such proclamations provide no immunity to accusations of "imperialist tendencies". Be that as it may, some have even gone so far as to say that the Paris consensus lacks legitimacy as it harks back to an era in which new donors had yet to appear.
Indeed, the Paris and Accra accords only cover official development assistance (ODA) from Dac countries, covering perhaps 60% of aid. That share is likely to shrink as non-Dac donors, such as China and Brazil, and private donors, are increasing their aid giving faster than Dac donors.
China's attitude that the principle of transparency should not apply to its aid programmes has understandably provoked concern among other donors and recipients. The UK is not happy, neither is Mexico or Rwanda, which is receiving plaudits for its economic progress, although President Paul Kagame's authoritarian tendencies leave some uneasy. Rwanda's position is that the sharing of information – particularly when developing countries request it – should happen regardless of the type of provider or partner involved. It seems an eminently sensible position, especially if the Paris principle of ownership is taken seriously.
But even among those who espouse transparency, differences have emerged among donors as to how much there should be. The US is cool towards making too much information available and objects to a paragraph to "make the full range of information on publicly funded development activities, their financing and contribution to development results, publicly available". Japan is reluctant to move beyond current monitoring frameworks of aid programmes that would provide more detailed information on aid flows. NGOs are pushing for international and transparency initiative standards (IATI) that came out of Accra. Japan, however, argues current standards – the Dac's credit reporting system (CRS) – is enough to be getting on with.
Beyond such details, it is clear that fragmentation is the order of the day. It could be argued that this is no bad thing for poor countries, who can play donors off against each other. But it can be hellish for poor countries to deal with too many well-wishers. Homi Kharas, Koji Makino and Woojin Jung, in Catalysing development: A new vision for aid, a joint publication of the Japanese and South Korean aid agencies, note that recipient countries each received an average of 263 donor missions in 2007 and their senior finance officials spend a third to half of their time meeting donors. In Kenya, Ghana and elsewhere, governments have resorted to "mission-free" periods to allow officials time to get on with their work.
It would be a major achievement if Busan brings some order to this clutter, but with key players pulling in different directions, that is a tall order.
The Guardian
The UK
Beijing's blunt rejection of the principle of transparency does not bode well for agreement at possibly the biggest aid summit yet
China must take the prize for sheer cheek in the current discussions on a final document for the Busan conference in South Korea on aid effectiveness.
With just two weeks to go, the pace is picking up among negotiators to hammer out an "outcome document" on the future direction of aid, or development cooperation as many prefer to call it. Another session is scheduled in Paris on Friday, bringing together the "sherpas" – aid officials from rich and poor countries – to try to bridge the clear philosophical gaps that have emerged.
Transparency on aid flows – how much money is being provided, where and how it is being spent and how it should be monitored – is one of the crucial issues for Busan, which promises to be the biggest aid conference yet. About 2,000 delegates are expected to attend, including Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, and Andrew Mitchell, the UK international development secretary.
The sherpas have to come up with a document that satisfies their masters, and transparency and accountability are a major source of contention. The UK, Nordic countries and the EU, as well as civil society organisations, prize transparency and want a strong commitment on this in the final document. Not China, an increasingly powerful player in the international aid architecture. China's aid has been estimated at $25bn but as it does not publish official figures, no one knows for sure.
China's attitude on transparency was laid bare in a summary of discussions on the outcome document in Paris earlier this month, as seen by the Guardian. At a meeting chaired by Enna Park, director general of South Korea's foreign ministry, China bluntly stated that the "principle of transparency should apply to north-south cooperation, but that it should not be seen as a standard for south-south cooperation". That is not just the diplomatic equivalent of throwing down the gauntlet to the established donors' club of the development assistance committee (Dac), but of smacking them in the face with it.
Beijing's position shows how hard it will be at the fourth high level forum (HLF4) on aid effectiveness to bring coherence to the cluttered marketplace for aid, where traditional donors from the west jostle not just with the rising powers, China, India, Brazil and South Korea, but with private foundations that donated $53bn in 2009. Busan is supposed to build on previous conferences in Paris and Accra and their core principles – ownership, harmonisation, alignment, managing for results and mutual accountability. But the more ambitious goal is to reach global agreement on basic principles to govern all major forms of development finance.
China is not the only one challenging the Paris-Accra consensus. Brazil, another proponent of south-south cooperation, is content to stay outside the Paris principles, maintaining that its aid programmes are driven by "solidarity" rather than strategic goals, as in the case of the US and Britain, although such proclamations provide no immunity to accusations of "imperialist tendencies". Be that as it may, some have even gone so far as to say that the Paris consensus lacks legitimacy as it harks back to an era in which new donors had yet to appear.
Indeed, the Paris and Accra accords only cover official development assistance (ODA) from Dac countries, covering perhaps 60% of aid. That share is likely to shrink as non-Dac donors, such as China and Brazil, and private donors, are increasing their aid giving faster than Dac donors.
China's attitude that the principle of transparency should not apply to its aid programmes has understandably provoked concern among other donors and recipients. The UK is not happy, neither is Mexico or Rwanda, which is receiving plaudits for its economic progress, although President Paul Kagame's authoritarian tendencies leave some uneasy. Rwanda's position is that the sharing of information – particularly when developing countries request it – should happen regardless of the type of provider or partner involved. It seems an eminently sensible position, especially if the Paris principle of ownership is taken seriously.
But even among those who espouse transparency, differences have emerged among donors as to how much there should be. The US is cool towards making too much information available and objects to a paragraph to "make the full range of information on publicly funded development activities, their financing and contribution to development results, publicly available". Japan is reluctant to move beyond current monitoring frameworks of aid programmes that would provide more detailed information on aid flows. NGOs are pushing for international and transparency initiative standards (IATI) that came out of Accra. Japan, however, argues current standards – the Dac's credit reporting system (CRS) – is enough to be getting on with.
Beyond such details, it is clear that fragmentation is the order of the day. It could be argued that this is no bad thing for poor countries, who can play donors off against each other. But it can be hellish for poor countries to deal with too many well-wishers. Homi Kharas, Koji Makino and Woojin Jung, in Catalysing development: A new vision for aid, a joint publication of the Japanese and South Korean aid agencies, note that recipient countries each received an average of 263 donor missions in 2007 and their senior finance officials spend a third to half of their time meeting donors. In Kenya, Ghana and elsewhere, governments have resorted to "mission-free" periods to allow officials time to get on with their work.
It would be a major achievement if Busan brings some order to this clutter, but with key players pulling in different directions, that is a tall order.
No comments:
Post a Comment