PROGRESS SINCE BUSAN AND INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT CENTRAL ASIA

1. PROGRESS SINCE BUSAN AND INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENTCENTRAL ASIA ZukhraKhakimova, Executive Director, NGO Jahon, CPDE Central Asia Sub regional focal person

2. In 2011, civil society organizations (CSOs) called upon all development actors to achieve a bold outcome at the Busan High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness by: • fully evaluating and deepening the Paris and Accra commitments; • strengthening development effectiveness through practices based on human rights standards; • supporting CSOs as independent development actors in their own right, and committing to an enabling environment for their work in all countries; and • promoting equitable and just development cooperation architecture.

3. The CSO Key Asks on the Road to Busan remained an important guide for CSO engagement with the process of reforming the aid system through development effectiveness advocacy, now pursued by the open platform called CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE).

4. The Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation made significant commitments in areas crucial to civil society such as democratic ownership (§12a), gender equality (§20) and enabling environment for CSOs (§22), and commit all stakeholders to the shared principles of ownership, results, inclusive development partnerships, and transparency and accountability (§11). However, two years after these commitments were made, the lack of political will to implement the overall agenda and the consequent slow progress are undeniable.

5. Task Team on Civil Society Organisation (CSO) Development Effectiveness and Enabling Environment identified key areas of interest to overview of evidence of progress on commitments made at the Accra and Busan High Level Forums (HLFs): • Democratic ownership and inclusive development partnerships (paras. 11a, 11c, 12a, &22); • Enabling environment for civil society (paras. 10, 11, 11d, 12d, 22, &22a); • Donor support to and engagement with civil society (paras. 10, 11d, 12d& 22a); and • CSOs’ development effectiveness (paras. 11d, 22b,&23d).

6. Examples of systematic, multi-stakeholder dialogue fora at national level have also been identified. The Public Councils(PCs) launched in Kyrgyzstan in 2011 offer an interesting model of institutionalized multi-stakeholder dialogue. These multi-stakeholder councils work under each Ministry and Agency as mechanisms of dialogue between government, civil society, the private sector, and other actors. By 2012, thirty-six such PCs were in operation with mixed success. CSOs in Kazakhstan participated in developing amendments and implementing regulations to the Law on State Social Contracting. In addition, local CSOs are working with Ministry of Culture and Information to prepare the draft Law on Government Support to CSOs

7. Working group on support to privet sector (ministers, donors, privet sector, CSOs) have been launched in Tajikistan in December 2013 to support development of privet sector, mechanism of cooperation among stakeholders, to implement BPA and etc. The working group is supported by UNDP/DFID Project “Support to Effective National Aid Coordination and Monitoring” • In 2012, the CSO coalition Transparency for Development have been created to support the Ministry of Finance and private mining businesses to prepare documentation for Tajikistan to be included in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). Multi stakeholders group with equal participation (government, extractive companies, CSOs) is established to promote and implement EITI in Tajikistan. Work of Coalition is supported by Soros Foundation

8. Pre-Busan trend toward a ‘disabling’ environment for civil society continues today • The legal environment remains challenging through Central Asia • In Kazakhstan The Law on Religious Activities and Religious Associations placesrestrictions on religiousgroupsandgovernment increased pressure on CSOs, particularly religious organizations, independent trade unions, and human rights organizations. • The Ministry of Education in Tajikistan issued new instructions barring students from attending events organized or funded by international CSOs.

9. CSOs in Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are de facto forbidden from engaging in public debates on political issues or criticizing the government at the local or national levels. • Public associations in Tajikistan complain of bureaucratic obstacles and increasing corruption and discrimination by the MoJ during the registration process • Interaction between CSOs and government in CA is not always effective.

10. Governments in Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan adopted laws, amendments, or procedures to make government funding available to the sector • Throughout the region, CSOs struggle to maintain permanent, paid staff. • It is often the case that development partners openly “attract” the most promising specialists working in the local organizations • CSOs in CA often develop their activities based on the agendas of international donors, while neglecting their strategic missions and goals.

11. In Kazakhstan, CSO advocacy was dampened by the new Law on National Security of Kazakhstan, which contains vague provisions that could be used to restrict freedom of speech and imposes criminal liability for attempting to overthrow the political system. • In Kyrgyzstan, on the other hand, CSOs took advantage of the growing openness in the policy process to push their agendas forward. • In Tajikistan, for example, the Coalition of Women CSOs successfully pushed the national government to finalize and adopt the law on domestic violence prevention in December 2012.

12. Financial viability remains the most significant challenge for CSOs in Central Asia and continue to rely predominantly on international donor funding • Individual and corporate philanthropy and income-generating activities remain largely undeveloped throughout the region. • Central Asian CSOs are gradually forming more coalitions to pursue their interests jointly. • Cooperation with privet sectors is rare

13. Between the Accra and Busan HLFs, the Open Forum led the global CSO process that led to establishment of the Istanbul Principles and their accompanying International Framework for implementation. • Within the year following HLF 4, the Open Forum put in place a series of resource materials to help CSOs with tools and learning resources that would encourage context-specific practice consistent with the Principles. • An Implementation Toolkit to encourage country-specific implementation of the Principles • Practitioner Activity Guide was also developed to help CSOs analyze how the Principles might relate to their work and to begin strategic planning for adapting and changing their practices accordingly

14. All mentioned toolkits and guides, IP and IF were presented in CPDE sub regional consultations held in December 3-5, 2012 to promote ADE on the country and sub regional level. In 2013 similar trainings were organized in Kirgizstan and Tajikistan. • TOT training on CSO DE was conducted in Tajikistan to encourage more CSOs at the country level to look closely into their organisation’s praxis, and strengthen their own effectiveness and accountability in keeping with the Istanbul Principles

15. There are number of massages by CSOs are prepared and commitment taken by donors and governments after each one High Level meeting, but we still observes low and insufficient progress from Acra to Busan. Many obligations are left on paper and massages without attention. • commitments taken by Donors and Governments from Acra to Busan has to be implemented with the inclusion and consideration massages made by CSOs (CSO key asks) • Key factors (leverages) can be applied to push and facilitate implementation of the commitments. • To set up realistic aims • To ensure linkages in between donor’s program on the global and country level

16. To increase number programs supported ADE agenda by donors and Governments.More donors has to be involved in to ADE agenda on the country level. • On the country level established working groups or councils to promote ADE agenda has not to be just formalities, but inclusive and equitable multilateral forum for policy dialogue and standard setting.(mechanism of EITI) • Monitoring framework of the National Partnership on ADE with indicators based on Global partnership monitoring and advancing implementation of commitments in the framework of Paris declaration, Accra’s action plan and Busan partnership agreement should be designed (experience of Kirgizstan) • To build capacity of Government and CSOs on ADE agenda

17. Support the sustainability of a diversity of CSOs as development actors in their own right, in line with human rights. • To improve enabling conditions for CSOs. • Support efforts in CSO accountability as guided by the Istanbul Principles and the International Framework for CSO Development Effectiveness. • To improve tax administration and strengthen corruption control to increase investment flow to the CA countries • To develop social enterprise (business structures with the social, charitable or community based objectives)

18. THANK YOU