12 by wpr1947


									Topic 3: How to strengthen CD through mutual and
domestic accountability?

Introduction, objectives, abstracts

This document contains a brief note framing the issues as well as all the abstracts of
the presentations as available as of 27 September 2006:

A well-known weakness of existing results-based approaches is their tendency to
emphasize accountability to donors. This can lead to the neglect or even
undermining of domestic ownership, capacity and accountability and to ignoring the
political economy of development. Political and social relationships (including the aid
relationship), interests, power differentials, and mind sets can significantly distort
analysis and perception. That applies to the “soft” side of capacity as well including
confidence, empowerment, relationships, negotiations, and coordination. Capacity
development is also a function of domestic accountability structures and governance
that allows for long term societal adaptation and transformation.
The Paris Declaration commits partners to “strengthen as appropriate the
parliamentary role in national development strategies and/or budgets” and to
“reinforce participatory approaches by systematically involving a broad range of
development partners when formulating and assessing progress in implementing
national development strategies” (para. 48). This echoes both the “broad
consultative processes” through which development strategies are to be developed
and implemented in the first place (para. 14) and the “participatory” approach,
through which capacity and demand for results-based management are to be
strengthened (para. 46).
Furthermore, as donors begin to face the consequences of an unprecedented era of
significant increases of aid the issues of aid dependency and domestic revenue
mobilisation capacity in poor countries are also gaining prominence. Experience
suggests that public use of revenues from taxation, extractive industries, licensing
fees and other instruments matters greatly for accountability because it is central to
a social fiscal contract in building effective and accountable authority to citizens and
ultimately better governance.
At the forum, domestic accountability will be addressed both among the thematic CD
areas (especially under CD for improved governance) and as a cross-cutting
concern for management of CD initiatives. This is a challenge not only to partner
countries, but also to donors. It implies de-emphasizing programming of CD in line
with donor concerns and taking off weight of accountability towards donors. On the
contrary, it implies putting top priority on addressing CD needs of local
constituencies and then to being accountable to them for results.

                                                    Excerpt from Conference Invitation

In democratic societies the ultimate sovereign is the people, including poor people,
women, and marginalized groups. Governments are held accountable at the very
minimum because they can be elected or replaced by public vote. During political
mandates there are authorities
mandated by the people, such as the                      Accountability
auditor general, to hold public
administration accountable to abide
by the rules. Accountability denotes
a relationship that relates closely to        Voice       relationship Responsiveness
the responsiveness of the “duty            Rights holder                 Duty bearer
bearers” to the concerns of the poor
on one side and on the “voice” of the
rights holders to articulate their needs
and claim their rights on the other side. Mutual accountability denotes the same in a
reciprocal way based on the notion of a contract.
In reality, accountability relations are often not working properly, distorted or outright
corrupt. Public institutions are captured by elites, individuals with power, and
resources diverted to serve those with influence. The poor ultimately are not
represented by public institutions. Even the aid relationship induces outward
accountability at the expense of responsiveness of private or public service providers
to their primary clients. The system is in a dysfunctional state and likely incapable to
reform itself from within due to an ingrained architecture of vested interests and
power differentials.

Defining clear accountability relations, responsibilities, rules and their enforcement
can constitute powerful regulatory mechanisms for collective systems. Mechanisms
that ensure accountability to poor and disadvantaged people shape the incentive
structures and can boost overall capacity to produce pro-poor development
outcomes. They build legitimacy and function as ultimate safeguard against the
misuse of power and protect space for societies to negotiate their long-term social
contract. Accountability is thus a critical pillar in developing a society‟s ability to
manage its affairs.

In exploring the principle issue of “How to strengthen CD through mutual and
domestic accountability?” this segment of the Forum will particularly look at the
following questions:

   What are promising experiences in building trust and ownership through
    mutual accountability mechanisms between developing countries and
    The Paris declaration stipulates “mutual accountability” and even dedicates
    indicator 12 to assessing mutual progress through “increasingly objective
    country level mechanisms”. What mechanisms do in principle qualify? What
    makes them effective?

   How can mutual accountability arrangements be tied into domestic
    accountability systems, such as parliamentary oversight, development
    planning and budgeting?
    The Paris commitments recognize the importance of domestic accountability,
    parliamentary oversight, and participatory practices. What are promising
    approaches to strengthen such domestic accountability? How can domestic
    accountability mechanisms replace or shape particular arrangements in the aid

   What accountability mechanisms are particularly suitable for coping with
    the reality of the political economy, vested interests and power
    Progress in achieving development objectives are subject to political processes
    beyond the direct control of any partner. It is also a function of the quality of
    relationships, “clear rules of the game” and effective ways of dealing with undue
    influence. What mechanisms are useful, effective and sufficiently robust to deal
    with such pressures?

   What criteria can guide and what propositions on promising practice should
    serve as pillars of mutual accountability arrangements?
    Accountability mechanisms will need to fit the purpose and context. But critical
    criteria or features may be identified that safeguard their effectiveness. What are
    some of the critical innovations that should be pursued as a matter of priority in
    establishing acceptable ground rules and instruments? Perspectives and the
    perception of relative importance of measure may differ with constituency.

                        MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY
         Donors and partners are accountable for development results

47. A major priority for partner countries and donors is to enhance mutual
accountability and transparency
in the use of development resources. This also helps strengthen public support for
national policies and
development assistance.
48. Partner countries commit to:
��Strengthen as appropriate the parliamentary role in national development
strategies and/or budgets.
��Reinforce participatory approaches by systematically involving a broad range of
development partners
when formulating and assessing progress in implementing national development
49. Donors commit to:
��Provide timely, transparent and comprehensive information on aid flows so as to
enable partner
authorities to present comprehensive budget reports to their legislatures and

50. Partner countries and donors commit to:
��Jointly assess through existing and increasingly objective country level
mechanisms mutual progress in
implementing agreed commitments on aid effectiveness, including the Partnership
Commitments. (Indicator 12).

The objective of the discussions under the topic is to address as concrete as
possible the above questions, in particular the potential avenues and innovations that
should become “default” mechanisms in development cooperation. Presenters and
participants are encouraged the lead their exchange with a view of identifying
lessons and practices that will be of wider interest to development practitioners.
While contextual information is important to understand the specific case,
contributions should address the questions and try to pinpoint the essential features
of promising practice.

The process is foreseen as follows:

1) The topic will be introduced in plenary with a short presentation on dimensions
   to consider. Each of the presenters will have 2 minutes to make very selected
   propositions of desirable innovation and practice.

2) The breakout sessions have the task to consider the above questions also but
   not only in light of the presentations. In effect presenters are asked to directly
   address these questions from their perspective and evidence.

3) Please note that participants will regroup around constituency perspectives for
   last 45 minutes to identify concrete propositions and arguments for the panellists
   that will engage on the arguing panel on the next day. Informal preparation
   groups can continue beyond 18h during the evening as useful.

4) During the arguing panel one advocate for each constituency perspective will
   present the propositions and arguments in a first round. In a second round a
   second advocate for each constituency perspective will respond and deepen the
   case as useful. The forum participants can contribute short inputs and questions
   in writing that will be presented and taken on board in the discussion. After final
   observations from the panellists, three observers will reflect on what promising
   practice they have been able to make out during the debate.

Breakout session

Working Group 1:
Anchoring mutual accountability in domestic accountability – Civil society

 Making visible women‟s initiatives for engendering accountability towards
   community Development and Local Governance in India – Prema Gopalan,
   Executive Director, Swayam Shikshan Prayog (SSP), India
 Real Accountability: improving aid through better accountability – Jasmine
   Burnley, Accountability Group, Action Aid, UK

Working Group 2:
Anchoring mutual accountability in domestic accountability – Between donors
and parliament

 Maximising Accountability around Technical Cooperation - Tessa McArthur; DFID,
 Working with Parliamentarians to Improve Their Capacity to Oversee Economic
   Policy: a Case Study – Mr. Nhlanhla Nene, Chair of the Portfolio Committee on
   Finance, South Africa and Neal P. Cohen (USAID), South Africa

Working Group 3:
Flexible approaches to forge mutual accountability: addressing the political
economy of aid relations

 Accountable Cooperation through Flexible Brokering and Mutual Trust –
   Transformation Steering Committee (TSC) in Uganda - Godfrey Ssebukulu,
   Transformation Manager, TSC, Uganda
 A promising approach to mutual accountability: the Tanzanian experience with the
   Independent Monitoring Group (IMG) – Prof. Samuel Wangwe, Tanzania

Working Group 4:
Exploring promising ground to strengthen capacity through accountability

 Capacity for mutual accountability: domestic resource mobilisation - Interim
   Steering Committee of the Kenyan National Tax Payer's Association and OECD
 “Refocusing Capacity Development at the African Development Bank” and
   Lessons in Building Local Governance Capacity – Claudius Bamidele Olowu,
   African Development Bank and Mr Ola Adigun, African Development Bank

Abstracts of presentations

1. Making visible women’s initiatives for engendering accountability towards
community Development and Local Governance in India

Ms. Prema Gopalan, Director - Swayam Shikshan Prayog – India
Global Coordinator – Women and Disaster Campaign – HUAIROU Commission

The process of globalisation, liberalisation, privatisation and decentralisation has
unleashed a wide range of policies and programmes, which in the absence of safety
nets affect the poor negatively, especially when they are not organised into
collectives. […]
A "critical mass" of well-informed women's groups and poor communities can be
encouraged to participate in the development reforms, then their concerns can
become central to the planning process. Strengthened by this belief, SSP seeks to
influence shifts in policies and resource allocations from below, creating a micro-
macro balance. SSP, through its projects, helps to redesign the governance
mechanisms to promote participatory democracy, which allows communities
particularly elected representatives, women‟s collectives and marginal sections of
society to take lead roles in determining development priorities and deciding resource
allocation. SSP initiated and stabilised Savings and Credit Groups (SCGs) for women
through regular meetings, mobilising savings, giving loans and instituting transparent
systems for financial and social accountability. Simultaneously, SSP worked with the
state and district administration to include participation of women‟s collectives in
monitoring development allocations and resource decisions.

1. Increasing space for womens participation and building capacities for decision
2. Enhance access, outreach and quality of services to communities through
   community monitoring and lobbying with local authorities
3. Promoting grassroots democratic forums, with participation of women‟s
   community groups in local governance structures.
4. Policy and Institutional reform towards control of decisions and resources by
   community groups and elected local governments

    Women and Women's groups are not controlling governments, but they are
      taking up new citizenry roles that are resulting from political frameworks such
      as decentralisation, privatisation, fundamentalist governments etc.
    Grassroots women are producers of knowledge, skilled and drivers of their
      communities. Solutions at the community level can be invested into grassroots
      women's groups themselves.
    Grassroots women can be partners with professionals who can support
      grassroots initiatives.

      Grassroots women are holding key public spaces and hence they can be
       operated and managed by women.

Links to supporting resources, other background Documents
Swayam Shikshan Prayog

Key contacts
Swayam Shikshan Prayog, Room # 20, 1st Floor, Shahaji Raje Municipal School
Opp: Parleshwar Society, Shahaji Raje Road, Vileparle (East), Mumbai 400 057,
Tel : 91-22-55841388, Tel/Fax: 91-22-26820905 , Email: sspindia@vsnl.net

2. Real Accountability: improving aid through better accountability

Jasmine Burnley, ActionAid

The presentation looks at ActionAid work on aid effectiveness and highlights the
following key issues:
Accountability is key to aid effectiveness but donor behaviour tends to undermine
relationships of accountability. In particular, practices such as conditionality put
donors in the driving seat and subvert domestic lines of accountability by taking
decisions out of the hands of both country governments, and civil society. Our
research shows that Technical Assistance in particular is an area with an
accountability vacuum. It is donor-driven, overpriced and ineffective, and as a result,
prioritises government-to-donor accountability over any other form of
accountableness. Mutual accountability is on the table as a result of Paris
Declaration donor commitments, but will it solve these deep rooted accountability
problems? Our recommendations suggest that genuinely mutually accountable aid
processes must be based on southern country ownership combined with donor
practices which de-emphasise their demands for accountability and look to
strengthen rather than weaken domestic accountability processes.

Links to supporting resources, other background Documents
“Real Aid 2: Making Technical Assistance Work”
“Real Aid 1: An Agenda for Making Aid Work”

Key contacts
Jasmine Burnley; Aid and Accountability Team; ActionAid UK

3. Maximising Accountability around Technical Cooperation

Tessa MacArthur, DFID, UK

This presentation will discuss the Paris Declaration as a framework for mutual
accountability between international partners and developing countries in the area of
Technical Cooperation. The Paris monitoring process has the potential to improve
data about TC coordination and alignment and hold development partners more
accountable to developing countries. It will promote more joint dialogue on preferred

Other aspects of the Paris Declaration encourage development partners to be more
accountable for providing TC in an effective way. It continues to be one of the most
criticised areas of aid. For example, the targets encourage greater use of country
systems, avoidance of Project Implementation Units, and progress on untying.

The presentation will consider the complex accountability relationships surrounding
donor funded Technical Cooperation. Consultants are often more accountable to the
donor than the partner institution they are working to. Partners do not always feel
accountability for the TC where it is a „free good‟ and where it has been donor driven
rather than arising in response to their demand. The presentation will emphasise that
if donor TC initiatives could be more jointly designed, contracted and managed by the
partner, there would be more straightforward accountability for delivery from the
consultant to the partner. The partner would also feel more accountable to domestic
actors for the overall impact and cost, thereby strengthening domestic accountability
and ownership. The presentation will conclude by considering the practical
challenges of moving faster towards joint and partner-led TC processes, noting
DFID‟s new How to Note and good practice principles on this area.

Links to Supporting Resources:




Key Contacts

Tessa MacArthur
Governance Adviser
Donor Policy & Partnerships Team
Room 8E13, Department for International Development
+44 207 023 1143

5. Working with Parliamentarians to Improve Their Capacity to Oversee
   Economic Policy

Mr. Nhlanhla Nene, Chair of the Portfolio Committee on Finance, South Africa;
Neal P. Cohen, formerly with USAID/South Africa

   USAID‟s program focused tightly on improving the capacity of black South
    Africans to understand, design and implement economic policy. Underlying
    USAID‟s program was the thesis that good economic policy was more likely to
    emerge if there were well trained government economists.
   Initially USAID worked with the national government and universities to improve
    the capacity of black South Africans but later the SA government and USAID both
    realized that it was necessary to improve the capacity of parliamentarians to
    monitor and publicly discuss economic policy. Initially USAID assisted the Auditor
    General‟s office to help parliamentarians understand Auditor-General reports and
    investigate misspending.
   Inquiries from parliament and requests from senior government officials that we
    help provide basic economics training for parliamentarians led to short courses on
    how to understand the Minister of Finance‟s budget speech and its impact on
    economic policy. Parliamentarians requested expansion to other areas of
    economics and it eventually led to an undergraduate degree in economics (public
   Economic policy capacity development that is demand-driven, localized, focused
    on imparting skills rather than prescribing policies is more likely to become
    institutionalized and sustained beyond the period of donor assistance.

Links to supporting resources, other background Documents

Key contacts
 Neal P. Cohen, 6415 NW 97 Ct, Gainesville FL 32653 USA
 Dorothy Qedani Mahlangu, MEC Gauteng Provincial Government, Johannesburg,
   South Africa (jeketac@gpg.gov.za)
 Nhlanhla Musa Nene, National Parliament, Cape Town, South Africa
 Kimberly Lucas, USAID/South Africa (klucas@usaid.gov)

5. Accountable Cooperation through Flexible Brokering and Mutual Trust –
Transformation Steering Committee (TSC) in Uganda.

Godfrey Ssebukulu, Transformation Manager, TSC, Uganda

Background - DFID, GTZ/Sida, USAID, World Bank, IFAD, Ministry of Finance, Bank
of Uganda (observer status) have signed a Letter of Mutual Understandung (LMU) as
the basis for the jointly formed Transformation Steering Committee (TSC). The
purpose of the TSC is to streamline and harmonise all donor support to Microfinance
Institutions (MFIs) who want to transform into (prudentially regulated and thus
formalised) Microfinance Deposit Taking Institutions (MDIs) and to MDIs who already
have transformed. DFID, in close consultation with the other donors, has recruited
and finances a transformation manager who advises the TSC.

Approach - Under the guidance of the transformation manager, and having consulted
fully with the TSC, donors issue Requests for Proposals (RFPs), to which the
transforming or transformed MFIs reply by sending proposals for specific support.
Administration of these proposals can be executed by the transformation manager or
the relevant donor staff, depending on which arrangement is most practical. Results
are shared with the TSC.

Lessons - TSC assures communication between the Bank of Uganda, Government
support programmes, foreign donors and other relevant partners. TSC is working to
reduce reporting requirements and the administrative burden of grantees by agreeing
on common reporting formats and reporting schedules. The transformation manager
works closely with the TSC to assure that transformation assistance is consistent
with industry objectives and that information is exchanged in an efficient and timely
manner. His role and expertise are crucial for the success of the TSC, as he calls the
meetings and gives the relevant recommendations regarding the activities to be
funded by whom.

The looseness of the arrangement has the advantage of getting simpler buy-in from
stakeholders (it is not binding and each donor can still administer support activities in
accordance with its own policies/procedures). The inherent disadvantage of such a
system is that it cannot formally prevent a donor from undermining the TSC, if
pressure to disburse funds is too high. However, to date, all members of the TSC
have respected both the spirit and the terms of the LMU.

TSC strengthens the accountability of donors and MFIs at the same time. MFIs
cannot play donors against each other (“double dipping”), as the donors (and their
supervisor, the BoU) discuss their performance and the FA/TA they will receive on a
regular basis. The success of the TSC has set the standard for donor collaboration in
Uganda and discussions are underway to replicate this model for other coordination

Challenges for Coordination with Reference to TSC

1.   Willingness to Share (Strategic Frameworks, Project Documentation,
     Workplans, RFPs) among TSC Members has been a challenge. Coordination
     without harmonising strategic frameworks for donor programs e.g. USAID, JICA
     emphasise utilisation of their Country Resources and Goods while DFID is more
     liberal on procurements. Differences in strategic frameworks and operations
     have hindered basket funding in Uganda – hence the need for coordination;
2.   Shift in Government Policy from corporate-led organisations to member-based
     organisations e.g SACCOs and VSLAs – has caused uncertainty as to the way
     forward for TSC members such as SUFFICE, Microfinance Outreach Plan, and
     the MCAP Fund;
3.   Monitoring and Evaluation – Reporting especially on accountable grants.
     Compliance with stringent WorldBank procurement guidelines has been a major
     challenge and has in some instances led to non-utilisation of allotted funds;
4.   Expiry of Donor Projects that are key members of the TSC – reinforces need for
     a clear exit strategy e.g. what happens to the TSC when Rural SPEED and
     FSDU Projects end Next Year 2007?; What happens if Rural SPEED or FSDU
     is renewed but with a new focus?

Links to supporting resources, other background Documents:
www.fsdu.or.ug; LMU for TSC; Publication: Transforming Microfinance Institutions
by Joanna Ledgerwood and Victoria White

Key contacts:
Saliya Kanathigoda
GTZ / Sida FSD Programme
Bank of Uganda

Karen Losse
Financial System Development
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH
Postfach 5180
D-65726 Eschborn

Tel.:    +49(0)6196-79-1999
Fax:     +49(0)6196-79-6557
e-mail: karen.losse@gtz.de
Internet: <http://www.gtz.de>

6. The Experience of the Independent Monitoring Group (IMG) in Tanzania

Prof. Samuel Wangwe

The principles agreed upon in the Paris declaration will have capacity development
implications both on the side of donors and developing countries. Tanzania is one
country which has made efforts towards improving aid effectiveness even before the
Paris declaration was put in place. The experience of Tanzania offers a number of
insights into what capacity development implications arise from developments in
improving aid relations towards making aid more effective. The implications of
capacity development is explicit both on then side of donors and various country
constituencies. These experiences will be brought to the table for discussion in the
context of capacity development implications of the Paris declaration in particular on
what works and what does not work. Tanzania‟s experience will be shared as
regards the importance of vision and commitment of the national leadership as a
critical factor for sustained capacity building and development. Finally the
experience with coordination and focusing of capacity development will be explored
and lessons will be drawn from the Tanzania experience.

Key contacts
Prof. Samuel Wangwe

7. Capacity for mutual accountability: domestic resource mobilisation

The Interim Steering Committee of the National Tax Payer's Association

This presentation will explore why capacity development issues are integral to
enhancing mutual accountability between citizens and states through resource
mobilisation and taxation. Specifically, using examples from Kenya, the challenges
and opportunities surrounding how the idea of a social fiscal contract can be realised
by state and society through taxation will be analysed i.e how to progress a pattern of
regular and routine accountability based on the principle of reciprocity and mutual
obligations, rather than patronage and coercion. The issues include how to enhance
the capacity of government institutions to mobilise resources but equally how to
strengthen the capacity of taxpayers to pay tax and to ensure the state is
accountable for the resources it collects and spends. Representatives from the
Interim Steering Committee of the Kenyan National Tax Payer's Association will
provide local perspectives. The OECD will present international perspectives.

Links to supporting resources, other background Documents
The OECD‟s Governance Network is starting a work stream on governance and
domestic resource mobilisation.

Key contacts
The Interim Steering Committee of the National Tax Payer's Association.

8. Refocusing Capacity Development at the African Development Bank

Mr Claudius Bamidele Olowu, African Development Bank
Mr Ola Adigun, African Development Bank

Capacity Development expressed in terms of human, organizational and institutional
capacity is critical to development. In the last three decades, Africa has faced several
adverse conditions, but unlike other economies, Africa‟s has not been able to
respond to these changes due to lack of capacity, and indeed a growing degradation
of its domestic capacity in many Regional Member Countries (RMCs).

Since its inception in 1964, the African Development Bank (AfDB) has identified
capacity building as an important element of its projects and programmes in regional
member countries (RMCs). This has focused on strengthening national institutions,
the development of human skills (through scholarships such as the Japan
Fellowship) and training workshops through the African Development Institute (ADI)
and the Joint Africa Institute (JAI) as well as other development partners. The Bank is
also a major sponsor of the African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF) based in
Harare, Zimbabwe. This was in response to widespread recognition that capacity
constituted the „missing link‟ in the development of African countries.

The AfDB has not been alone. Many other donors have injected a lot of money in
sector projects in Africa and the management of public administration. Unfortunately,
for a variety of reasons, the enormous commitment made by the donors has not led
to substantial improvements in capacity.

AfDB instituted a Bank-wide Taskforce on March 1, 2006. The objectives of the
Taskforce are to:

       To streamline the Bank‟s capacity development interventions by being more
        internally coherent and integrated in designing and implementing CD
       To assist the Bank to more effectively harmonize its activities with those of
        other Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) as a part of the expectations of
        the Paris declaration.
       To enhance the Bank‟s capacity to better assist RMCs in the design,
        implementation and evaluation of their capacity development plans which are
        expected to form a crucial element of their national development strategies.

This presentation will share the most important insights from this review with the
Conference and from staff deliberations on new directions for the Bank and RMCs in
this area.

Key contacts:
Mr. Ibrahim Diallo, Mr. Bamidele Olowu, Mr. Ola Adigun

9. Lessons in Building Local Governance Capacity

Mr Claudius Bamidele Olowu, African Development Bank

It is surprising that the issue of the lessons of building local governance capacity has
not really featured in the discussions of capacity building within the framework of the
Paris declaration or the OECD Good Practice Paper. Possibly it is felt that lots of
other avenues exist to discuss the subject.

Nevertheless, capacity building for local governance is important for several reasons,
three of which are mentioned here. First, many poor countries are committing
substantial resources to strengthening local institutions because they realized that
the delivery of crucial services associated with the achievement of MDGs is not
possible without effective local institutions. Secondly, lessons from the country
diagnostics such as participatory poverty analysis and poverty reduction strategy
paper (PRSP) processes and ADB‟s country governance profiles (CGPs) suggest
that poverty is caused as much by the powerlessness of ordinary citizens to influence
the major decisions that affect their lives as by the absence of incomes and access to
services. Finally, as many RMCs have initiated decentralized governance policies
and programmes in recent years, several development partners have provided
support for this effort and such efforts further complicate rather simplify matters on
the ground.

This project focuses two key issues – developing a set of indicators and data sets to
monitor progress in respect of local governance capacity development and the
harmonization of local governance support by donors. A group of donors are already
collaborating with the African Development Bank on this subject and the project
activities. The objective of sharing it in this forum would be to identifying any relevant
lessons and best practices that could be of value to this ongoing work.

Key contacts:
Ms. Karin Millett, Director, JAI, Tunis
Mr. B. Olowu, ADB, Tunis


To top