Oxfam International Blogs - ODA http://l.blogs.oxfam/es/tags/oda es Why 2019 is a Make-or-Break Year for International Aid http://l.blogs.oxfam/es/node/81826 <div class="field field-name-body"><p><strong>Don’t just take our word that aid is in danger: former OECD heavyweights agree</strong></p><p><em><span>By Polly Meeks (Senior Policy and Advocacy Officer at Eurodad), Julie Seghers (OECD Policy and Advocacy Advisor at Oxfam) and Jiten Yumnam (Secretary General of the Centre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur). First in a <a href="https://blogs.oxfam.org/en/blogs/19-01-14-4-critical-steps-ensure-international-aid-works-poorest-people">two-part series</a>.</span></em></p><p><span></span><span><strong>Nothing says ‘happy holidays’ like a scathing criticism</strong> of how the OECD is handling the ‘modernisation’ of overseas aid reporting, right? But an <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2018/12/21/dont-undermine-the-basic-architecture-of-oecd-dac-statistics-a-letter-of-warning/" rel="nofollow">open letter</a> published just before the festive break did offer two crucial holiday ingredients, at least for anyone with an interest in the quality of official development assistance (ODA): a rare chance to hear from long-standing acquaintances, and some fundamental reflections on vital issues for the year ahead.</span></p><p><span></span><span>The letter in question came from three former top-level experts from the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC): J. Brian Atwood and Richard Manning, two former DAC chairs, and Hedwig Riegler, a former chair of the DAC working party on statistics.</span></p><p><span></span><span>The main topic of the letter was the DAC’s heated debate over new rules on how to count so-called Private Sector Instruments or PSI (subsidies to the private sector) within ODA.</span></p><p>In this blog post we underline some of the insights in the letter. In a second post, to be published shortly, we will look at the wider context of the PSI debate.</p><p></p><h3>Alarm bells ringing at the highest levels</h3><p></p><p><span>PSIs are subsidies that come from donor countries to private sector actors through loans, equity investments or guarantees. Their inclusion in ODA has far-reaching implications for the quantity and quality of aid that reaches some of the poorest people on the planet.</span></p><p>The open letter from Atwood, Manning and Riegler coincided with an OECD announcement of a set of <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dac/Private-Sector-Instruments.htm" rel="nofollow">provisional reporting arrangements</a> for PSI following four long years of debate (more on these in our next post).</p><p><strong>And the letter’s verdict</strong> on the current state of play was an unequivocal critique:</p><p><em>The process of ‘modernising’ Official Development Assistance (ODA) “now appears to be dominated by politically-motivated discussions guided by Finance Ministries” and is “placing the clarity, integrity and credibility of ODA statistics at risk.”</em></p><p><em>There is a ‘’danger that the excessively generous new rules [on reporting ODA investments in the private sector] will encourage a stampede of donors towards “cost-free” ODA through PSI operations.”</em></p><p>To anyone who has been following civil society advocacy on PSI, this may not sound like anything new. A broad coalition of advocates from the global south and global north has been making these arguments for years (e.g. <a href="https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/oxfam-dac-hlm-feb-2016.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="https://eurodad.org/files/pdf/1546531-oecd-dac-hlm.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/oxfams-recommendations-oecd-dac-reform-aid-private-sector-instruments" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="https://eurodad.org/files/pdf/58381f22d9034.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="https://eurodad.org/files/pdf/1546716-cso-recommendations-on-psi-reform.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4hU_Yivka3-OXRQMC02TTFFcHc/view" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="https://eurodad.org/files/pdf/59f2f0d2da8de.pdf" rel="nofollow">here </a>&nbsp;and <a href="https://eurodad.org/files/pdf/5be410c169506.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>...).</p><p>But to hear the same arguments expressed so explicitly by such senior, technically renowned insiders is an unprecedented development – and one which signals just how gravely the current situation endangers the credibility and impact of ODA.</p><p><img alt="OECD Conference Center main entrance. Paris, France. Photo: OECD/Michael Dean" title="OECD Conference Center main entrance. Paris, France. Photo: OECD/Michael Dean" height="400" width="600" class="media-element file-default" data-delta="2" typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://l.blogs.oxfam/sites/default/files/oecd-entrance.jpg" /></p><p><em>OECD Conference Center main entrance. Paris, France. Credit: OECD/Michael Dean</em></p><p></p><h3>Eroding ODA’s very nature: blurring the boundary between aid and commercial transactions.</h3><p></p><p><span>One of the most controversial areas of the&nbsp;</span><span>Private Sector Instruments</span><span> debate (and one that the provisional reporting arrangements leave unresolved) is the proposal that PSIs do not need to meet a basic criterion for ODA: concessionality.</span></p><p><strong>Concessionality</strong> – the principle that Official Develoment Assistance should be offered on terms that involve a cost to the donor, not at market rates – has been fundamental to the ODA concept since its origins in the late 1960s. This was the result of long and hard reflection – the culmination of public pressure, explicit requests from governments in the global south, and a realisation in the donor community that ‘more concessional aid was ultimately about aid effectiveness,’ taking into account the economic conditions and debt risks in many recipient countries.</p><p><strong>In short, concessionality can make the difference</strong> between getting essential aid to poor communities, or saddling their countries with unsustainable debts that threaten to impoverish them further.</p><p>Our civil society coalition has always <a href="https://eurodad.org/files/pdf/5be410c169506.pdf" rel="nofollow">opposed any erosion of the concessionality principle</a>, arguing it would go against ODA’s very nature and dilute the boundaries between ODA and commercial transactions. We’ve asked that activities that fail the concessionality test should never be ODA-eligible. Brian Atwood, Richard Manning and Hedwig Riegler agree:</p><p><strong>PSI “fail one of the fundamental tests of ODA</strong>, which is that all its transactions must be “concessional in character”… Discarding concessionality as one of the pillars of the ODA definition contradicts its original purpose, which is precisely to distinguish between concessional and non-concessional flows”</p><p>This leads them to the conclusion that:</p><p>“We are not against recording as ODA what passes the traditional test of ODA (including “concessional in character”), but the financial flows generated by private sector instruments themselves should be recorded in the OOF (other official flows) category.”</p><p></p><h3>2019: a make-or-break year for the credibility of DAC statistics</h3><p></p><p><span>As pointed out by Atwood, Manning and Riegler, dropping the concessionality criterion would:</span></p><p><em>“… undermine the basic architecture of … DAC statistics”</em></p><p>This in turn could have much wider ramifications for the credibility of DAC statistics as a whole:</p><p><em>“If the present excessive political influence on decision-making is not curbed, even the basic role of the … DAC in measurement may well be questioned”</em></p><p><strong>Such a prediction makes grim reading</strong> as we put the holiday season behind us and get down to the business of 2019.</p><p>But, as our next post will set out, the current impasse offers opportunities as well as challenges, if DAC members are bold enough to seize them. Stay tuned!</p><p><em>The entry posted on 10 January 2019, by Polly Meeks (Senior Policy and Advocacy Officer at Eurodad, <a href="twitter.com/polly_meeks" rel="nofollow">@polly_meeks</a>), Julie Seghers (OECD Policy and Advocacy Advisor at Oxfam, <a href="twitter.com/JulieSeghers" rel="nofollow">@JulieSeghers</a>) and Jiten Yumnam (Secretary General of the Centre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur). Also published simultaneously by <a href="https://eurodad.org/private-sector-instruments" rel="nofollow">Eurodad</a>.</em></p><p><em>Photo: Oxfam staff deliver desperately needed food to thousands of people caught up in the Ebola outbreak in Equateur province, Democratic Republic of Congo, June 2018. Credit: Alain Nking/Oxfam</em></p><p></p></div><div class="field field-name-title"><h2>Why 2019 is a Make-or-Break Year for International Aid</h2></div> Thu, 10 Jan 2019 14:38:28 +0000 Guest Blogger 81826 at http://l.blogs.oxfam http://l.blogs.oxfam/es/node/81826#comments Can official development assistance be reformed to help the poorest countries? http://l.blogs.oxfam/es/node/81022 <div class="field field-name-body"><p><strong>The rules defining official development assistance, a key poverty reduction tool, are currently being revised by the OECD. But if governments and citizens from the South are not consulted more, this reform is likely to be in their detriment.</strong></p><p>The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is <a href="http://www.oecd.org/fr/cad/financementpourledeveloppementdurable/modernisation-dac-statistical-system.htm" rel="nofollow">currently revising</a> the rules defining what can be counted as official development assistance (ODA), which is a key poverty reduction tool. If this reform is not combined with the required criteria and safeguards – established in consultation with governments and citizens in the South – it is likely to be to the detriment of the poorest.</p><h3>A crucial reform devised behind closed doors</h3><p>For over two years now, representatives from donor countries have been busy with a very full agenda, under the leadership of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) in Paris.</p><p>Their objective is to revise the rules on what can – or cannot – be counted as official development assistance. The two priorities for 2017 are to define to what extent ODA can 1) promote private sector development in developing countries, and 2) finance the reception of refugees in rich countries. While this may appear to be technical work, it does have fundamental policy implications for the future of ODA. Yet until now, discussions have been proceeding behind closed doors in Paris, without any proper consultation with the first to feel the impact, i.e. developing countries and civil society. The importance of a transparent and inclusive reform process had, however, been set out in the <a href="http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.227/L.1" rel="nofollow">Financing for Development Agreement</a> (point 55) endorsed in Addis Ababa in 2015.</p><p><strong><img alt="A meeting at the OECD Conference Center in Paris. Credit: OECD/Andrew Wheeler" title="A meeting at the OECD Conference Center in Paris. Credit: OECD/Andrew Wheeler" height="667" width="1000" class="media-element file-default" typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://l.blogs.oxfam/sites/default/files/oecd-img_2447.jpg" /></strong></p><h3>Promoting aid to support the private sector: what impact on the fight against poverty?</h3><p><strong>The first area of the reform aims</strong> to bring about a more extensive eligibility and use of ODA in the form of loans, investments or guarantees for private actors[1]. This type of financing is often channeled through development finance institutions – PROPARCO in the case of France. The stated objective of this reform is to promote private sector development in poor countries, resulting in more growth and job creation.</p><p><strong>There is no doubt that the private sector plays a crucial role</strong> in the development process. The growth generated by private actors has contributed to an unprecedented reduction in poverty around the world in recent decades. Consequently, it makes real sense for public authorities to promote inclusive and sustainable growth that is broadly beneficial and preserves the planet. However, given the often mixed results of partnerships between public and private actors, which are one of the forms of private sector mobilization for development, Oxfam has doubts as to the relevance and legitimacy of the use of limited ODA funds to support projects conducted by the private sector. The use of a public-private partnership for the construction and management of the largest hospital in Lesotho, supported by the IFC – the World Bank’s private investment arm – is a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/07/lesotho-health-budget-private-consortium-hospital" rel="nofollow">telling example of the dangers of this model</a>, and of the negative impacts it can have on inequalities.</p><p><strong>An <a href="https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-private-finance-blending-for-development-130217-en.pdf" rel="nofollow">Oxfam and Eurodad study</a> shows that there is limited evidence</strong> on the impact that partnerships with the private sector have on development and poverty reduction. Furthermore, the study shows that these partnerships often fail to align with the fundamental principles of aid effectiveness : the ownership by partner countries is limited, and transparency and accountability are lacking. It is certainly more complicated to apply these standards in the case of financial arrangements involving private partners. It is precisely for this reason that donors need to make greater efforts to ensure that all public funds labelled “ODA” respect the spirit of these principles, otherwise we fear that there will be a decline in the quality of aid.</p><p><strong>Another area of concern is that it is sometimes more difficult to prevent environmental and social risks</strong> in the context of projects involving private intermediaries, as shown by a recent study on projects supported by the World Bank, which transit through commercial banks and private capital funds in Southeast Asia. In addition, <a href="http://www.eurodad.org/files/pdf/1546237-a-private-affair-shining-a-light-on-the-shadowy-institutions-giving-public-support-to-private-companies-and-taking-over-the-development-agenda.pdf" rel="nofollow">almost half </a>of the beneficiaries of the funds disbursed by development finance institutions are subsidiaries of companies based in OECD countries. Consequently, an increase in the aid transiting through these entities leads to the risk of large groups in developed countries benefiting more than private operators – especially SMEs – in developing countries.</p><p><strong>Finally, this type of project tends to focus on middle-income countries</strong> rather than on least developed countries, where it is more difficult to achieve a return on investment. They also tend to focus on the energy, industry and banking sectors. In the long term, encouraging the use of aid for this type of project could redefine the scope of ODA, and result in less financing for public programs in social sectors, such as health and education. In a context where official development assistance volumes are generally stagnant (or even in decline in certain countries), there is a need to question the way in which this reform can influence donor practices, in the more or less distant future, and thereby shape a certain way of defining aid over the long term.</p><p><strong>Civil society organizations, including Oxfam</strong>, have developed a set of detailed recommendations in order to ensure that the ongoing reform is combined with demanding criteria and safeguards that will minimize these risks. The aim is to ensure that the poorest populations gain the most from these new rules. It is also about protecting the credibility of official development assistance as a poverty reduction tool.</p><p><img alt="People from Somalia, Sudan and Morocco and elsewhere arriving at the military port of Lampedusa, Sicily. Credit: Italian Coast Guard, Nov 2015" title="People from Somalia, Sudan and Morocco and elsewhere arriving at the military port of Lampedusa, Sicily. Credit: Italian Coast Guard, Nov 2015" height="680" width="1240" class="media-element file-default" typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://l.blogs.oxfam/sites/default/files/_mg_2207-italian-coast-guard-migrants-1240x680.jpg" /></p><h3>Using ODA to host refugees: robbing Peter to pay Paul?</h3><p><strong>The revision of rules on the use of ODA for expenditures related to hosting refugees in rich countries poses another major challenge.</strong> The eligibility of this type of expenditure has been authorized by the OECD since 1988, but had remained somewhat marginal until recently. However, between 2010 and 2016, this expenditure sharply grew from USD 3.4 billion to USD 15.4 billion, reaching almost 11 % of the total ODA budget. In 2016, a significant proportion of the budget was devoted to it in a number of European countries : 38 % in Austria, 34 % in Italy, and 25 % in Germany.</p><p>The situation in France is for the time being a bit different, as these costs (which accounted for 4.5 % of the aid budget in 2016) are borne by the budget of the Ministry of the Interior, then added to ODA expenditure. The figures give us some food for thought : in 2015, while European DAC members devoted USD 9.7bn of official development assistance to receive 1.2 million asylum seekers in their own territories, they only spent USD 3.2bn for aid in Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan – the 5 main countries where asylum seekers come from.</p><p><strong>This practice is <a href="https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/reactions/rich-countries-misleading-public-about-overseas-aid-spending" rel="nofollow">denounced by Oxfam</a>,</strong> as well as by a number of other civil society organizations, and has recently been questioned by the <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/poor-countries-pay-twice-for-refugees-by-jorge-moreira-da-silva-2017-02?referrer=/mFHsTHOvw9" rel="nofollow">OECD Secretariat</a>. It is obviously the responsibility of developed countries to receive refugees and mobilize the financing required to meet their needs and respect their rights. But in the view of civil society, this financing – whether additional or allocated from existing development assistance budgets and therefore to the detriment of projects in poor countries – should not be credited as ODA, as it does not support developing countries.</p><p>This expenditure is made in the territories of Western countries, and must consequently be considered as coming under their national policies and budgets.</p><p><strong>The reform could have provided the opportunity</strong> to end, once and for all, this rule, which allows rich countries to affix the “ODA” label on money which does not contribute to the development of poor countries. Unfortunately, this is not on the agenda of the DAC, which has only decided to “clarify” the rules in order to limit the room for interpretation and harmonize reporting practices.</p><p>While we deplore this missed opportunity, we do see it as a <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dac/CSO%20inputs%20on%20clarification%20of%20rules%20on%20ODA%20to%20in-donor%20refugee%20costs.pdf" rel="nofollow">chance to tighten the rules</a>. This includes clarifying the non-eligibility of certain expenditure : administrative, police, security, control, repatriation costs… Stricter reporting could mark the first step towards a total exclusion in the long term of this expenditure which, in our opinion, artificially inflates ODA figures.</p><p>With this reform, the integrity of <a href="https://www.oxfam.org/en/multimedia/video/2010-does-aid-work" rel="nofollow">official development assistance as the main tool to reduce poverty and inequalities in the South</a> is at stake. Aid plays a vital role in least developed countries, where it accounts for two-thirds of external financing. If it is well managed, it facilitates access for the poorest populations to essential services, such as health and education, it contributes to reducing inequalities, and strengthens the capacities of States to meet the needs of their citizens.</p><p>[1] Indeed, <a href="https://www.oecd.org/dac/DAC-HLM-Communique-2016.pdf" rel="nofollow">in its communiqué of February 2016</a>, the OECD DAC stated: “We recognize the importance of strengthening private sector engagement in development and wish to encourage the use of ODA to mobilize additional private sector resources for development.”</p><p><em>This entry posted by Julie Seghers (<a href="twitter.com/JulieSeghers" rel="nofollow">@JulieSeghers</a>), Responsible for Oxfam’s advocacy towards the OECD, on 19 April 2017. Originally published by <a href="https://goo.gl/fJpBQ3" rel="nofollow">Ideas for Development</a>, a blog coordinated by the French Development Agency.”</em></p><p><em>Photos:<br></em></p><ul><li><em>Martha Nyandit waits for an Oxfam/WFP food delivery, Mingkaman camp, South Sudan. Credit: Pablo Tosco/Oxfam, April 2014</em></li><li><em>A meeting at the OECD Conference Center in Paris. Credit: OECD/Andrew Wheeler</em></li><li><em>People from Somalia, Sudan and Morocco and elsewhere arriving at the military port of Lampedusa, Sicily. Credit: Italian Coast Guard, Nov 2015</em></li></ul><p></p><p></p><p></p></div><div class="field field-name-title"><h2>Can official development assistance be reformed to help the poorest countries?</h2></div> Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:27:40 +0000 Guest Blogger 81022 at http://l.blogs.oxfam http://l.blogs.oxfam/es/node/81022#comments Paddling Against the Tide http://l.blogs.oxfam/es/node/39883 <div class="field field-name-body"><h3>How the changes in the OECD’s definition of aid continue to undermine global efforts against poverty. A statement by African civil society.</h3> <p>Not even half a year ago, world leaders adopted the <strong><a href="https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-09-24/global-goals-poverty-inequality-and-climate-change-challenge" rel="nofollow">Agenda 2030</a></strong>, the latest global agreement towards transforming our world for the betterment of all humankind. With its bold pledge to leave no one behind, and a new set of urgent goals and targets which came into effect at the beginning of 2016, the Agenda represents an ambitious and universal programme to bring the world together for the purpose of addressing pressing and enduring global social, economic and environmental challenges in an integrated way.</p> <p>Yet last week, the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) – the body which oversees the OECD’s aid policy and spending – met in Paris to review progress in its “ODA modernization process” and consider the role of development cooperation in the refugee crisis. This meeting caused <strong><a href="https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/reactions/rich-country-governments-put-national-interests-ahead-worlds-poorest" rel="nofollow">big concerns</a></strong> that new agreements would be at cross-purposes with the collective effort, and the role and integrity of ODA as espoused in the post 2015 development agenda are at severe risk.</p> <h3>Too many issues still not resolved</h3> <p>As had been feared, the outcomes were largely disappointing, knocking back the credibility of aid and severely undercutting the potential that ODA holds towards realisation of a truly transformed world by the target date of 2030.</p> <p>As members of African civil society, we are fully conscious that despite the hope held by the Agenda 2030, key global talks held in 2015 left several issues unresolved: the failure by countries of the global north to meet their climate financing responsibilities, the north-south divide on an effective international tax system, and the need to secure adequate levels, as well as preserve the integrity, of aid in the new global development agenda.</p> <h3>Aid for Sub-Saharan Africa is decreasing</h3> <p>Despite a global upward trend in ODA, figures for 2014 show that aid to Sub-Saharan Africa fell for the second consecutive year - back to levels they were a decade ago. This is happening against a background of a long history of developed countries’ failure to meet the UN target for development aid of 0.7% of GNI, recouping on odious debt and decades of turning a blind eye to the scandal of illicit financial flows which continue to bleed Africa of billions of dollars in much needed development finance.</p> <p>It would have been the DAC’s obligation to make conscious efforts to consolidate the gains made in the series of meetings in 2015 rather than seeking to widen existing fault lines and detracting from the collective vision, less than two months into the life of the Agenda 2030.</p> <h3>Subsidies for the private sector instead of funds for essential public services</h3> <p>Instead, against widespread pressure from civil society and citizens of both the global North and South, the DAC failed to preserve the integrity of ODA, agreeing to expand what can be reported as ODA to include costs whose primary purpose is not directly linked to ending poverty. Agreements reached have opened the door for greater donor abuse of ODA by allowing the spiriting away of aid from deserving public programmes towards subsidising the private sector and supporting ambiguous security-related uses.</p> <p>The private sector is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the DAC decisions last week. Despite the risks of deploying scarce public finance to prop up the private sector, the agreements open the way for greater use of aid in subsidies to private companies. While the moves in this direction are in part supposed to “ensure efficient use of scarce public funds and targeting (of) projects with high expected social returns, without creating market distortions”, it is worth noting that, thus far, the deployment of public funds in aid of private sector-led development projects in Africa has had mixed results.</p> <p>The committee’s agreements in this area are littered with loopholes and a series of critical, but yet to be defined, provisions. There is, e.g. the requirement for any aid funds used to support the private sector to be additional to what the private financial sector would have provided anyway. However, it still needs to be defined how to measure this 'additionality'. Also remaining unanswered is how to account for ODA when the public donor money is ‘blended’ with private money or used to subsidise a loan. In addition, donors will be allowed to count public guarantees – the money public entities agree to pay private investors in the event of a failed investment – as ODA.</p> <h3>Rules widely open for interpretation</h3> <p>While a wholesale capitulation may have been averted in relation to greater spending on military and security costs with the retaining of broad language that excludes the financing of military equipment or services from ODA reporting, we remain on a steep and dangerous course. New rules on eligibility of spending ostensibly to prevent violent extremism are problematic. Although couched in the language that such activities would be led by partner countries and be of developmental import, the rules and the purpose for which such monies can be spent is widely open to interpretation, and therefore opens the door for donors to manipulate aid for narrow geopolitical interests at the expense of global development and poverty reduction.</p> <p>The meeting chose to kick the can down the road on the urgent issue of reigning in the massive amounts of ODA that are being diverted to cover in-donor country refugee costs. The DAC has agreed to set up a process to clarify reporting rules regarding the use of development aid for in-donor refugee costs, and promises that this will be done in a clear, transparent and inclusive manner. We look forward to these consultations and the provision of space for the effective participation of civil society organizations in this future work.</p> <h3>Civil society organisations in Africa are already facing slashed budgets from donors</h3> <p>As the DAC dithers on this issue, it is worth noting that many countries have stepped up the diversion of their aid budgets to cover the costs of refugee reception in the current crisis, primarily in the EU. Impacts are already being felt. Civil society organisations in Africa are already facing slashed budgets from donors, and there is growing uncertainty on the sustainability of current and future development programmes. Estimations from the OECD seem to confirm our fears, as around $10 billion of ODA are expected to be spent on in-donor country refugee costs in 2016.</p> <p>In this regard we call for quick and decisive action, and reiterate longstanding calls that in-donor country refugee costs should not be reportable as ODA. These expenditures serve to support the economies of donor countries and have no tangible benefits or linkages to the objective of improving the welfare of poor people in their own countries.</p> <h3>Aid can work – and it is needed!</h3> <p>It is worth reminding the OECD, if needed, that aid is still larger than any other external resource flow in 43 countries - most in Sub-Saharan Africa. ODA will therefore continue to be vital for development in most African countries in the short- to medium-term, particularly when it is targeted and administered well, helping more people to access healthcare, education and other essential services, and tackle widening inequality, where governments lack the capacity to extend public services to all.</p> <p>Invested well, <strong><a href="https://www.oxfam.org/en/multimedia/video/2010-does-aid-work" rel="nofollow">ODA provides people in developing countries with life choices</a></strong> and opportunities that help reduce some of the push factors behind the current refugee crisis. It is therefore a paradox of momentous proportions that funds that could be put in service of poverty reduction, building of capacity for developing countries to mobilise their own resources for development, entrench democratic governance, support the development of local economies and provision of decent work, should be diverted to meeting the needs of citizens of these countries only after they have become refugees in rich countries.</p> <p>Lastly, we believe that developing countries and civil society organisations – being the ones primarily impacted by how ODA is used – should have a say on what counts or doesn't count as ODA, on further rules-setting, and on operations of the DAC in general. The DAC making such critical decisions behind closed doors is contrary to principles of transparency and accountability. We therefore call on the DAC to move speedily in exploring ways of opening up its work in the future.</p> <p><strong>Co-signatures:</strong></p> <ul><li>1. <strong>Fanwell Kenala Bokosi</strong>, PhD, Executive Director, African Forum and Network on Debt and Development (AFRODAD)</li> <li>2. <strong>Akhator ODIGIE</strong>, Coordinator Human and Trade Union Rights, African Regional Organisation of the International Trade Union Confederation</li> <li>3. <strong>Edward Chileka-Banda</strong>, Executive Director, Eye for Development (EFD ), Lilongwe, Malawi</li> <li>4. <strong>Rola Badran</strong>, Programs Officer, Arab Institute for Human Rights (AIHR), Tunis, Tunisia</li> <li>5.<strong> Osai Ojigho</strong>, Coordinator, State of the Union Coalition (SOTU)</li> <li>6. <strong>Dinah Musindarwezo</strong>, Executive Director, African Women's Development and Communications Network (FEMNET)</li> <li>7. <strong>Achieng Akena</strong>,, Executive Director, Centre for Citizens' Participation on the African Union (CCPAU)</li> <li>8. <strong>Hannah Forster</strong>, Executive Director, African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS)</li> <li>9. <strong>Martin Tsounkeu</strong>, General Representative, Africa Development Interchange Network (ADIN), Chair of the Commonwealth Civil Society Advisory Committee (CSAC), CPDE Focal Point, Cameroon (Development Effectiveness), Coordinator, Global Social Economy Group (GSEG)-Cameroon</li> <li>10. <strong>James Njoroge Gitau</strong>, Chairman, Kariobangi South Welfare &amp; Slums Housing Association (KASWESHA)</li> <li>11. <strong>Corlett Letlojane</strong>, Executive Director, Human Rights Institute of South Africa</li> <li>12. <strong>Kenneth Nana Amoateng</strong>, Chief Executive Officer, Abibiman Foundation</li> <li>13. <strong>Yves Niyiragira</strong>, Executive Director, Fahamu</li> <li>14. <strong>Vitalice Meja</strong>, Coordinator RoA Africa Secretariat Reality of Aid Africa Network (ROA Africa)</li> </ul><h3>What you can do now</h3> <p><a href="https://act.oxfam.org/international/let-aid-do-it-s-job" rel="nofollow"><strong>Tell EU Leaders: Let aid do its job!</strong></a></p> <p><em>This entry was posted on 29 February 2016.</em> </p></div><div class="field field-name-title"><h2>Paddling Against the Tide</h2></div> Mon, 29 Feb 2016 17:59:20 +0000 Guest Blogger 39883 at http://l.blogs.oxfam http://l.blogs.oxfam/es/node/39883#comments