Aid effectiveness was the main subject for discussion in the OECD this week in Paris. Representatives from developing country governments, donors and CSOs converged in Paris to discuss the recently released Accra Agenda for Action – effectively a draft Communiqué for the Accra High Level Forum in September. CSOs are very concerned that donors are dragging their feet in current negotiations, given the very weak commitments being proposed.

The current draft of the AAA (dated the 18th March) is disappointing. It starts from a low common denominator which will have to be substantially strengthened if it is going to attract the high level Ministerial attendance at the Forum that the aid reform process demands. Enormous energy has been mobilised and investment made in improving the quality of aid received by developing countries. Donors cannot afford to allow this energy to evaporate by refusing to make strong commitments. In the words of the Nigerian representative to the Working Party on aid effectiveness “we want to see these commitments translated into action”.

CSOs presented their prioritised concerns regarding the current draft of the AAA in Paris. They highlighted that the principle of democratic ownership must be included in the Communiqué as a fundamental element of aid effectiveness. CSOs cited three specific issues mentioned in the AAA where they particularly want to see stronger language. These are conditionality, technical assistance and tied aid. In addition, they pointed to one glaring omission from the Communiqué, namely, an explicit commitment to greater transparency.

The current proposal on conditionality to work towards a code of conduct on transparently implementing conditionality would not translate into meaningful change in the aid system. The current draft only calls for a reduction in the number of overlapping conditions, which would do nothing to reduce the conditionality burden. CSOs called for a commitment from donors to radically diminish the number of conditions so that they no longer form part of the aid relationship by 2010.

Technical assistance may amount to as much as 50% of aid, but there are serious concerns from particular citizens and governments in developing countries that it represents good value for money. CSOs argued that the AAA should set a target of 100% of tied aid being demand-driven and coordinated, and that donors should report specifically on the impact of their technical assistance. Again at present the draft AAA is extremely weak, putting nearly all the responsibility on developing country governments to resolve this problem.

Proposed options in the current AAA include some interesting options for improving tied aid. One is “extending the current DAC recommendation on the untying of aid”. CSOs called for this definition to be expanded to include all countries and that it should include food aid and technical assistance. They also called for donors to give preference to developing country suppliers, which is a second option currently listed in the AAA. The third option is a mastery of manipulated language which means next to nothing: “Donors will continue to make progress on untying aid by establishing and monitoring progress towards reaching a target for Paris Declaration Indicator 8 on untying aid.”

Improved transparency around both aid flows and aid negotiations is critical for improving accountability and for promoting democratic ownership.

The Nigerian representative highlighted a recent example of the problem. The government has recently carried out an audit of donor investments in the country over the last ten years. When they asked specific questions about budgeting and aid flows during these years, none of the donors were able to account for all of their aid. Not wanting to name names, he said that “a large donor from a very advanced country” said that they did not keep their records.

The majority of donors that intervened supported CSO recommendations. The Danish representative said that “it was very difficult to disagree with the interventions of CSOs,” and recognised the missing issue of transparency and the need to look into democratic ownership. The Dutch representative said that conditionality “was an issue that we need to tackle and be much more eloquent about”. He suggested that we need to “come up with very concrete suggestions for how to do this”. He also highlighted the serious problem of “implicit conditionality” which leads to significant lack of predictability and a lack of trust.

The AAA was discussed by donors and recipient governments in the Working Party on aid effectiveness yesterday and today following the CSO consultation. Given the significant malaise by both developing country governments and a number of donors about the state of the current draft, it is sure to be an interesting discussion.