Come September 2, representatives of donors and the developing countries they assist – governments as well as civil society – will meet in Accra, Ghana, to review decisions made in Paris, France in 2005 on the way aid should be delivered and managed. By the end of what will be the Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness on September 4, it is hoped that the developing countries would have decided on actions needed to accelerate progress on development targets specifically as these relate to the 2015 Millennium Development Goals.
Two studies, one undertaken in 2006 and the other just completed this year, have revealed that although some aid-recipient countries have made progress towards activating development policies and building capacity to make their local systems stronger and more reliable thereby allowing them to make the appropriate plans to utilize the aid they are accessing, some others have not.
Donor countries and agencies that have committed to improving the lives of the world’s most disadvantaged people have, over the years, become concerned at the lack of impact they were seeing when compared with the magnitude of aid poured into making this happen.
Accountability, or rather the lack of it, from recipient countries has been the cause of real concern among donors and this has been obvious as the funds pledged are not usually what are actually handed over. In 2005, donors had committed to increase economic aid to Africa by US$25 billion. However, to date overseas development aid to Africa has only increased by US$7 billion and pledges for 2008/2009 total some US$4 billion. This is despite intense lobbying done by countries, international non-governmental organizations and several celebrities who identify with the movement to reduce poverty and AIDS in Africa.
Worldwide, some 100 countries may see an increase in aid by 2010 and some 33 countries will face a decrease. While, for some of the countries – such as China, Egypt, India and Thailand –this is because they no longer need the aid, among the 33 are eight least-developed countries and another four classified as fragile states that will face a drop in development aid. (China, in fact, is now a donor country and is increasingly moving into Africa providing aid.)
What is obvious is that although there is acknowledgement that the funding is necessary, donors are not stepping up to the plate. There is no indication that next month’s meeting will change this in any way. However, what is on the agenda in Accra is a step in the right direction. Among the subjects that will be up for discussion is the changing development landscape. In addition to China, aid to developing countries now also comes from India, Brazil, Arab nations, and large bodies such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives money specifically for health issues like cervical cancer. Then there is the President’s Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) that deals only with HIV.
The involvement of civil society and non-governmental organisations has been increasing and rightly so, since these groups can play an important role in ensuring aid effectiveness through rigorous monitoring that might not be undertaken by some governments. There is still need to convince some governments that their parliaments and citizens must have a say in how development aid is used and that consultation and consensus are necessary prior to accessing these funds in order to guard against duplication of programmes and misuse of aid. The more open the process, the more likely its chances of success.
Perhaps the most crucial point that will be raised, particularly in these parts, will be the proposal to drop certain conditionalities attached to aid, which will allow the countries accessing the funds a greater say in where and how it is spent. Donors will no doubt require evidence of strengthened capacity and greater accountability from recipients, which ought not to be difficult considering the superfluity of technical cooperation that has accompanied aid over the years.
