1 / 20

Eun Mee Kim* & Jae Eun Lee** * Dean & Professor, Graduate School of International Studies

Beyond Busan: From Aid to Development Effectiveness and South Korea’s Challenges as an Emerging Donor. Eun Mee Kim* & Jae Eun Lee** * Dean & Professor, Graduate School of International Studies Director, Institute for Development and Human Security Ewha Womans University

moke
Download Presentation

Eun Mee Kim* & Jae Eun Lee** * Dean & Professor, Graduate School of International Studies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Beyond Busan: From Aid to Development Effectiveness and South Korea’s Challenges as an Emerging Donor Eun Mee Kim* & Jae Eun Lee** * Dean & Professor, Graduate School of International Studies Director, Institute for Development and Human Security Ewha Womans University ** Ph. D. Candidate, Graduate School of International Studies Ewha Womans University DSA Conference November 3, 2012

  2. Table of Contents I. Introduction II. From Aid to Development Effectiveness III. New Global Partnership IV. South Korea’s Challenges as an Emerging Donor

  3. I. Introduction • Global Partnership for Effective Development • New global development cooperation framework launched • Growing importance of emerging donors’ influence in development activities • South Korea as an emerging donor • Joined OECD DAC as 24th member • Hosted G20 Summit Meeting (2010) & Busan HLF-4 (2011) • Led discussion and efforts towards a new global framework • Encouraged participation of emerging donors (including BRICs) • Steering Committee of Global Partnership • Representative of providers of development cooperation (with EU and US)

  4. II. From Aid to Development Effectiveness 1. Evolution of Aid Effectiveness Framework • Millennium Development Goals by 2015 • Monterrey Consensus (2002) • Commitment to increase development finance • HLF-1 (First High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness), Rome (2003) • Need for more effective management of aid for maximization of development impact • Led by OECD/DAC WP-EFF • Aid Harmonization

  5. II. From Aid to Development Effectiveness 1. Evolution of Aid Effectiveness Framework • HLF-2, Paris (2005) • Paris Declaration endorsed • 5 Principles: Ownership, Alignment, Harmonization, Results-based Management, Mutual Accountability • Practical and action-oriented roadmap by 2010: Goals with specific indicators & target years, monitoring process • HLF-3, Accra (2008) • Accelerate and deepen implementation of the Paris Declaration • Three areas for improvement: Ownership, Inclusive Partnership, Delivering Results

  6. II. From Aid to Development Effectiveness 1. Evolution of Aid Effectiveness Framework • Analysis of the Paris Declaration Monitoring Survey (OECD, 2011): • Real, but slow and uneven results • Real changes in aid management and delivery practices • Paris Principle as global norms for development cooperation • Targets far from being universally achieved • An Increasingly Complex Development Environment • New Global Development Challenges including food insecurity, climate change and armed conflict • Enlarging role for different actors and stakeholders • Aid as a catalyst of development - complementary to other development resources

  7. II. From Aid to Development Effectiveness 2. HLF-4, Busan (2011) • The most inclusive agreement on global development cooperation • 2,500 participants: (1) 160 donor and partner countries including South-South partners; and (2) 70 international organizations, NGOs, congresses, and business corporations • Negotiating status given to diverse development stakeholders on an equal footing: NGOs, business corporations • Reaffirmed commitment for MDGs and sustainable development

  8. II. From Aid to Development Effectiveness 2. HLF-4, Busan (2011) • “Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation” (Outcome Document) • Shared Principles: • Ownership of development priorities by developing countries • Focus on results • Inclusive development partnerships • Transparency and accountability • Shared Principles of ownership, results and accountability are directly derived from the Paris Principle • New Commitments: Inclusive partnerships; Transparency

  9. II. From Aid to Development Effectiveness • Commitments for Effective Development: • South-South Cooperation and Triangular Cooperation • Private Sector and Development • Combating Corruption and Illicit Flows • Climate Change Finance • Commitments for Effectiveness of Development Cooperation: • Ownership, Results and Accountability • Transparent and Responsible Cooperation • Sustainable Development in Situations of Conflict and Fragility • Strengthening Resilience and Reducing Vulnerability

  10. II. From Aid to Development Effectiveness 2. HLF-4, Busan (2011) • Focus shifts from technical aid effectiveness towards new development effectiveness agenda • Development effectiveness is a progressively more ambitious agenda, more complex, and can create difficulties in operationalization and evaluation • Concerns about the unfinished business of Paris and Accra • Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation as the New Framework is launched (June 2012)

  11. III. New Global Partnership (June2012- ) 1. Governance (1) Ministerial Meeting • Reviews progress in implementing Busan commitments • Meets every 18-24 months, alternating back-to-back with UNCDF (UN Capital Development Fund) and OECD DAC High Level Meetings (2) Steering Committee • Steers the work of the ministerial meeting including strategic priorities and agenda • Acts as Ambassadors of Global Partnership to other international/regional processes • 3 Co-Chairs and 15 Steering Committee Members Ministerial Meeting Support Secretariat: OECD/ UNDP Agenda & Priorities Tasks & Assignments Guidance Steering Committee Support

  12. (3) Secretariat: OECD & UNDP • UNDP will partner with OECD to support the new framework • UNDP newly joined the secretariat for the new framework  Helps strengthen legitimacy of the HLF process and the new framework for universal rules and norms • Division of labor: • OECD: Analytical expertise • UNDP: Brings breadth based on international development work in the field

  13. (4) Monitoring Indicators and Process • Global Monitoring of the Busan Partnership • Participation of South-South providers in the monitoring framework is voluntary • 10 Indicators: Efforts to reduce burden associated with collecting data • Indicators on civil society, private sector, and gender equality newly introduced • Indicators on civil society & private sector to be further discussed and detailed definitions and measurement issues to be finalized by late 2012 (Hong 2012) • Target Year: 2015

  14. Comparison of HLF Principles

  15. III. New Global Partnership 2. Remaining Challenges (1) “Loose alliance” in order to encourage participation of emerging donors • “Differentiated commitments” to encourage South-South partners’ participation in the new framework • Reduce commitments to common principles as “voluntary” for South-South Cooperation of BRICS (2) Need to ensure monitoring of implementation (3) Follow-up Process • Impact of the Busan Partnership depends on follow-up • Ensure that monitoring indicators are applied to traditional donors and gradually extended to other HLF-4 stakeholders (Oxfam 2012)

  16. IV. South Korea’s Challenges as an Emerging Donor 1. Leadership in the Steering Committee • Further strengthen South-South partners’ political commitment • Contributed to active participation of South-South partners in the Busan Partnership • Bridging Role between traditional and emerging donors • Steering Committee • South Korea is 1 of 3 representatives of Providers of Development Cooperation • Co-Chairs (Ministerial Level): • Ms. Armida Alisjahbana, Minister of State for National Development Planning, Indonesia • Ms. Justine Greening, Secretary of State for International Development, U.K. • Ms. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Minister of Finance, Nigeria • Steering Committee Members (Senior Level): • Representatives of Recipients (5), Recipient and Providers (1), Providers (3) of Development Cooperation, Private Sector (1), Parliamentarians (1), Civil Society (1), Multilateral Development Banks(1) , UNDP/UNDG (1), and OECD/DAC (1)

  17. Steering Committee Members

  18. IV. South Korea’s Challenges as an Emerging Donor 2. Develop National Strategy for Global Partnership • Reform policies and processes for development cooperation • More coherent and harmonized approach based on agreement by diverse actors

  19. IV. South Korea’s Challenges as an Emerging Donor 3. Strengthen Political Support for ODA • Strong political commitment of the new President (2013-) • Reaffirmation of goals of South Korea’s ODA: Volume and Global leadership • Continued improvement of the Aid System • Increase participation and involvement of CSOs • Human resource building at home: Education and training of development cooperation experts

More Related