Three rules for donors: making sure public-private development finance actually works

Last year’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Paris Agreement on climate change represent a significant political shift away from a dependency on fossil fuels towards an era of development more in harmony with the environment. They broaden the previous focus of tackling poverty to include leaving no-one behind and tackling inequality.

Both will require billions, if not trillions, of pounds to implement.

With limited aid budgets, donor governments and global institutions have quickly set their sights on leveraging private sector investment as a way of plugging this finance gap. Aid budgets are increasingly directed towards participating in private sector projects, such as big infrastructure projects like roads, ports and hospitals; service provision such as schools; energy and healthcare.

But if public-private partnerships (PPPs) are to be used effectively to implement both the SDGs and the Paris Agreement, donors need to keep three key rules in mind.

The Sustainable Development Goals and Laudato Si’

Next week, world leaders at the UN will formally adopt 17 new Sustainable Development Goals. The SDGs build on the Millennium Development Goals with the aim of eradicating extreme poverty, tackling inequality and taking action on climate change as part of wide-ranging commitments to sustainable development.

Earlier this year, Pope Francis released Laudato Si’, an encyclical on integral human development which adds to the Catholic Church’s body of teaching. Laudato Si’ is unique in its intention to influence international politics and the multilateral agreements they produce. As a major UN outcome, how do the SDGs meet the challenge set by Laudato Si’?

Can we reach a principled approach to public-private finance?

In a year of major UN Summits on development finance, sustainable development goals (SDGs) and climate change, the topic that has dominated the discussions has been on the role of the private sector and the finance that it can provide and finance that can be channelled through it.

This is clearly controversial with some groups arguing that no development finance should go through the private sector, while others see it as the panacea to “crowd-in” as much private sector involvement as possible.

Whichever side you’re on (or somewhere in the middle), one thing is clear – that the role of the private sector is likely to increase significantly in all forms of development in the forthcoming years, and certainly within the lifetime of the new SDGs.

Accountability in the post-2015 agenda: from the known to the unknown

A common mantra in educational theory is ‘moving from the known to the unknown’. Popularised by psychologist Herbert Spencer it posits that, in approaching a complex subject, individuals are largely influenced by what is already known to them from experience of their immediate environment. Effective learning starts with the concrete, moving to the abstract.

Could this simple principle be applied to the accountability framework for the post-2015 development agenda?

There has been a concerted call for the monitoring and accountability framework to be an integral part of the Post-2015 development agenda and not an after-thought.  But the debate is still polarised on what sort of accountability framework will deliver for people in poverty. Should there be a totally new accountability framework, or should we start from the known and move to the unknown?

How [not] to run a consultation: lessons from the Data Revolution

This is a joint blog by Neva Frecheville, Lead Analyst on Post-2015 Development at CAFOD and Savio Carvalho, Senior Advisor, Campaigning on International Development & Human Rights at Amnesty International

The groundswell of interest and support for a new post-2015 agenda has been dependent on the global conversation that informs and influences governments and the United Nations (UN) in its endeavour to come up with goals to replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Time after time, civil society voices have added new ideas, reminded government of their existing obligations, such as human rights, and pushed the boundaries of ambition. Most governments around the world now accept that the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) should be universal, address inequality both within and between countries, and adopt an integrated approach to environment, society and economy, leaving no one behind.

From the High Level Panel’s whirlwind global tour, to the UN’s thematic and national consultations, from the MyWorld survey to the World We Want platform, to civil society briefings with the OWG co-chairs, outreach webinars and roundtables you would have thought that enough cumulative experience has been built by the UN to know what makes for an effective, inclusive and participatory process of consultation.

Apparently not.

Same story, different process.

Welcome to the Data Revolution Advisory Group – but will it be a revolution driven by people?

A warm welcome to Ban Ki-Moon’s new independent expert advisory group on the data revolution. While the data revolution conversation has been bubbling away over the last year, it’s been difficult to see how it will be brought into the official post-2015 process. With the announcement of the expert group, that missing piece of the puzzle has become clearer. The group will be tasked to input to the UN SG’s much anticipated Synthesis Report, providing input into the fourth chapter on the accountability framework (the other three covering the background, goals and targets proposed by the OWG, and financing).

Benita, 4 years old, from Ruyenzi, Rwanda using a mobile. How will her voice be heard in the data revolution?

So far, so good. But looking at the press release, a couple of questions occurred to me. As I’ve previously pointed out, the data revolution is in danger of missing out on the key constituency who are meant to benefit most from the collective endeavour to create a global development agenda: the very people who on a daily-basis experience poverty, injustice, discrimination and exclusion. Yet reading through the list I failed to spot anyone who would obviously champion this perspective. When the Secretary General High Level Panel was formed in 2012, Graҫa Machel, among others, supported the perspectives of people living in poverty, and many Panellists reached out to engage with different groups.

Which way does the compass point on accountability and transparency?

COMPASS 2015 Research Session in the Philippines

The debate is raging (in some circles) about what should come after the MDGs in 2015 but amongst all this discussion the voices of those who really matter – those experiencing poverty or marginalisation – are not always present. To try and address this CAFOD has just finished an in-depth research project exploring people’s experiences of poverty and exclusion over the past 15 years, as part of the wider Participate initiative with the same aim. The COMPASS 2015 research project explored people’s experience of poverty and exclusion over the last 15 years involving 1,420 participants in Zimbabwe, Uganda, the Philippines and Bolivia. A central issue that emerged was how development projects and services are delivered and who benefits. Concerns about how governments and other actors involved, such as INGOs, were accountable and the transparency of the process were high on people’s agendas.

Poor governance structures which lead to political patronage, corruption or the disproportionate favouring of those in more privileged positions affect the poorest and marginalised the most. Those are the people who rely most on services or development programmes and  cannot afford to find alternatives

But how to reverse these trends and ensure greater accountability from those who are delivering services? Amongst many possible measures are feedback mechanisms, the participation of communities, freedom of information and protection for those who speak out are important steps to build a better system.

Has Liam Fox been sneaking money out of the aid budget?

Last week it seemed like everyone was so busy talking about Liam Fox’s leaked letter to David Cameron on international aid, that they barely had time to actually read the thing.

For me, the most shocking part of the letter wasn’t Fox’s opposition to the government’s proposal to legislate on the 0.7% promise (about as surprising as Owen Barder’s support for economists) – it was Fox’s complaint about transparency in aid spending.

Let’s look at what he actually said:

 “…as a result of the wider drive to improve the transparency and accountability of international development work, the Government’s own monitoring and reporting requirements for ODA (aid) are likely to become more stringent. This may present risks to my department’s ability to both report certain priority activities as ODA and, therefore, to receive funding for them from the Conflict Pool.”

So, basically, if it’s possible to see exactly what Dr Fox’s defence department are trying to report as aid, there would probably be a judgement that these activities are outside the OECD rules.  I can’t see a way to interpret this other than to say that Dr Fox is complaining because he will no longer be able to sneak money out of the aid pot for his defence activities without anyone noticing.