Blog

Local Experts Weigh In On International Framework to Improve Development Effectiveness

by Danielle Ellingston and Linda Martin, Global Washington Volunteer

On June 11, Global Washington hosted one of 2 U.S. based consultations, as part of The Open Forum, an initiative driven by a global coalition of CSO’s, whose goal is “to define and promote the roles and effectiveness of the CSO sector in development, based on a shared framework of principles”.  The Seattle based consultation was one of hundreds of consultations occurring in over 50 countries by the end of 2010.   

Sixteen people attended the consultation, and provided insight and recommendations in three areas:  

1) Global Principles of CSO Development Effectiveness.
2) Best Practices and Methods for Implementing Principles.
3) The Enabling Environment for CSO Success.

What Defines a CSO?

The consultation kicked off with a discussion on the term, “CSO” which can be somewhat nebulous. The general consensus is that CSO is a broad umbrella term for organizations outside the government seeking to affect change in their society. Open Forum builds on this definition,”CSOs represent the engagement of people who have organized to promote human dignity and accompany people around the world in efforts to realize human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Two recommendations which surfaced during this discussion include ensuring inclusion of the voices of local CSOs throughout the Open Forum process, whether they are formally recognized or informally constituted; and to more clearly delineate the roles of the Global North and Global South CSOs.

Principles of CSO Development Effectiveness.

Participants first reviewed a set of draft principles offered by InterAction, the organization coordinating the U.S. CSO response, before opening up the meeting to additional ideas for common principles. A lively dialogue followed, reflecting the group’s passion for inclusion, relationship building, and locally based leadership as keystones for successful CSO development efforts.

We offer the following 4 principles for consideration:

1.       Include local grassroots voices.
Allow local CSOs in developing countries a greater voice in the Open Forum, and in the design and application of development policies. These measures can help ensure long term, sustainable development solutions.

2.       Embody respect for local traditions and cultures.
Local people are the primary agents of change in their communities, not outside organizations. To develop culturally appropriate solutions, we must first learn about the existing conditions and forces – political, environmental, and familial – that created a need for assistance. Respect the local process for identifying needs, gathering information, implementing projects, and ensuring accountability.

3.       Consider impact on community and long-term relationships.
Increase the focus on long term project impact and outcomes. Aim to build relationships, trust, and leadership in a community, and not harm existing relationships or relationship structures.

4.       Build local capacity by letting locals lead.
Employ local people as the leaders of local projects whenever possible.  Include local voices at all stages of the development project life-cycle. 

 Implementing CSO Development Principles

1.       Be accountable by local standards.
Accountability measures must be informed by local norms. Define success well, using the local definitions of success. Increase grassroots participation and downward accountability in CSOs. Understand local assessment methods, and base monitoring and evaluation on those methods.

2.       Incorporate cultural capacity building training and ongoing coaching as a prerequisite for project planning and development, and monitoring and evaluation activities.

3.       Include relationship building goals and milestones, such as building trust, collaboration, and cross-sector and cross-issue solutions, as indicators of success.

 Standards Which Support an Enabling Environment for CSO Success.

1.       Increase donor responsiveness to local norms for accountability and data indicators, collection and use.
We believe donors need to do a better job of balancing the need to ensure funds are wisely spent, with increased sensitivity to the capacity of recipient organizations to provide such data. Data collection is often considered a resource drain on recipient organizations, and increases the administrative/overhead cost of running a project. Reporting requirements should not place an undue burden on recipient organizations.

Moreover, we encourage donors to consider local standards for accountability. Input from some consultation members suggests that funders collect too much data, with little explanation of what the data will be used for, and that decisions are sometimes made without using the data that was collected. We recommend that funding entities consider collecting less data, and using what is collected more thoughtfully.

We also encourage donors to be more transparent by sharing with recipients why certain indicators are chosen and how data will be used.

2.       Fund for long-term community development, with built in flexibility.
The funding process, from application to evaluation, should create incentives for programs that have a long-term positive impact on community and relationships.  We encourage programs which are nimble and responsive to the changing needs of communities, that offer greater flexibility in how funds are spent, and that are developed in partnership with local CSOs who have a hands on understanding of local conditions.  

Participants indicated that organizations are often hindered by donor funding schedules, preventing locals from addressing pressing needs. We recommend developing more responsive funding timelines which address time-sensitive needs, along with longer term programmatic support to help support sustainable outcomes.

3.       Support transparent and accountable hiring practices.
Ensure that CSO staff work in the interests of the organization’s mission; hire DSO staff on the basis of their qualifications.

4.       Be fair and inclusive.
Promote respect for local professionals and equality between north-south partners.

5.       Develop the cultural capacity of non-local DSCOs to help ensure effective use of resources. Increased cultural competency will help experts to work within local structures more effectively and with each other.

One of the most interesting ideas that came out of the discussion was the suggestion to move towards a resource or asset based development approach. CSOs would identify assets and resources available  to support development activity, along with capacity building programs to build local assets, essential for sustainability. Such an approach would take into account the resources and skills local and non-local CSOs bring to the table, making projects more geared to local capacity while facilitating an exchange of skills and ideas that would benefit both. Based on the assessment, capacity building programs can be put into place to build local assets, which are considered essential for sustainability. As one participant noted” Sharing power with the local leaders is integral to formulating an effective strategy in the field”.

Next Steps

InterAction is combining the recommendations from our Seattle consultation with the ideas that came out of the two-day consultation in Washington, DC, and will write a report based on the outcome.  They will present this report at the Open Forum Global Assembly in Istanbul, Turkey in September 2010.  Stay tuned for updates.  For further information, please refer to the links below.

The Open Forum
Interaction
2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness
Accra Agenda for Action (AAA)

In the Market for Conservation

Written by Brett Walton, who writes for Circle of Blue, a network of journalists, scientists and communication design experts reporting on global water issues.

What is a clean watershed worth? Nature lovers might say ‘priceless’, but the emerging consensus among global conservation experts is that the best way to preserve an ecosystem is to put a price on it.

The buzzphrase in international conservation is ecosystem services; that is, the things nature does that are beneficial to humans. Proponents divide the concept into four service categories: provisioning (e.g. timber, food), regulating (maintaining water quality, controlling floods), supporting (pollination, photosynthesis), and cultural (recreation, beauty).

Because these services are not traded on markets, their value is often neglected in corporate and governmental balance sheets. For example, a city might clear-cut a forest or drain a wetland to build a factory. The factory has clear economic metrics: jobs created, output, construction costs; but the ecosystem is usually described obliquely and does not factor well into cost-benefit equations. If we had a way to quantitatively assess the environment, maybe that factory doesn’t get built because the wetland is more valuable as a climate-regulating, water-purifying, flood-controlling, tourism-inducing bird habitat.

To redress this, researchers are now looking at putting a dollar figure on the benefits from natural processes. Programs such as the United Nations Environment Program’s The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity hope that better valuation of the environment will lead businesses and governments to make better development decisions. A corollary to the idea is that an ecosystem is an asset that land owners are paid to preserve.

This shift in thinking is particularly important for watersheds. In my last post I wrote about problems with clean drinking water. Globally, 75 percent of freshwater supplies come from forested catchments. Payment for ecosystem services (PES) can play a huge role in improving source quality. New York City does not have to filter its water supply because of a watershed restoration program that involved purchasing forests and paying land owners for best management practices. The cost of the restoration program: US$1 billion. The cost of a water treatment plant: US$8 billion, plus US$300-500 million annual maintenance. More than one-third of the world’s largest cities get their water supply from such protected forests.

Not only is it good government policy, it is also good business. Evian and Vittel, two bottled water companies, use payment for ecosystem services to reduce treatment costs at their bottling plants in France. The companies have contracts that pay upstream farmers per hectare to use organic fertilizers and pesticides. Preventing pollutants from entering the rivers and aquifers by paying the land owners for the fertilizer cost difference is cheaper than removing them.

These types of payments are most common in Latin America, the United States and China, according to a recent report by Ecosystem Marketplace quantifying PES transactions for water quality. The report found that US$9.3 billion was paid to land owners in 2008. The Chinese government’s Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland program, accounting for 40 percent of its seven-fold increase in water quality PES in the last eight years. The benefits, as measured in economic terms, are substantial. The UNEP’s report on ecosystem restoration argues that well-managed projects provide returns of 7 to 79 percent.

Tracy Stanton, who wrote the Ecosystem Marketplace report, told me in an interview that the market-based approach helped to bring together people who would not normally cooperate.

“With a market system we start from a point of shared stewardship instead of being told by the government to meet a permit volume,” Stanton said.

The PES model is far from perfect. There is much debate on what to include in the valuation calculus: the proper temporal and spatial scales, discount rates, and proper valuation method. Despite the uncertainty, the PES model should continue to grow. It gives land owners incentive to preserve vital spaces, and couches the costs and benefits in language decision-makers are accustomed to using.

The Release of Global Washington’s Policy Paper

One might not usually expect to find an indoor auditorium packed to capacity on a beautiful sunny, Seattle summer afternoon. But on July 6, Seattle University’s Pigott Auditorium was filled to capacity as Senator Maria Cantwell and Maura O’Neill, Chief Innovation Operator of USAID headlined the release of Global Washington’s policy paper; “Global Development through Trade, Aid, Education, and Partnerships: Recommendations from Global Washington.” This paper was designed to provide policy makers with the knowledge and tools with which to reform a broken foreign assistance system.

After an introduction by Stephen Sanborg S.J., president of Seattle University, Senator Cantwell highlighted the importance of Global Washington’s activity in a state that is deeply connected with the world around it. With a culture of unbridled generosity, caring, and innovation, Senator Cantwell believes Washington State is well positioned to provide recommendations to the policy makers in Washington DC on issues of development. As Senator Cantwell recognized, it is very uncommon for constituents to provide their elected officials with clear policy recommendations and a plan to enact those policies. Thus Senator Cantwell committed herself to play her part in promoting these recommendations. To raise awareness of the need to reform the foreign aid system, Senator Cantwell promised that she and Senator Patty Murray would work together to ensure policy makers such as President Obama, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and important Congressional leaders consider these recommendations.

Senator Cantwell noted that with only 1% of the federal budget, foreign aid funding must be spent as efficiently as possible to ensure development objectives are met. Development projects must be crafted to ensure aid reaches the intended targets, that aid is measurable and that future development strategy is formed on results. Given President Obama’s understanding and commitment to strengthening development alongside diplomacy and defense, Senator Cantwell believes there is no better time than now to reform foreign aid. Referencing a local Native American saying, “Alki,” Senator Cantwell ended by saying “Global WA is giving hope for everyone in the future.”

After Senator Cantwell’s speech, a panel of leaders in the development community convened to discuss the main recommendations of the policy paper. Jennifer Potter, President and CEO of the Initiative for Global Development, opened the panel discussion by noting the need to make foreign aid a main priority of the U.S. government. To accomplish this task, Ms. Potter offered several primary recommendations of the policy paper. Most notably, Ms. Potter expounded the need to create a national development strategy that would incorporate various policy sectors such as trade, aid, and agriculture. Ms. Potter also voiced the importance of targeting aid to those most in need and ensuring the local ownership of aid projects, a central tenet of the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

Steve Crane, president of Crane International, focused on trade as it relates to development policy. While noting there is still much to be done to achieve the goals of development, Mr. Crane believes trade is an important factor in achieving development. As such, Mr. Crane highlighted the need to target aid to build the capacity of local entrepreneurs as a means to achieve sustainable economic growth. Mr. Crane also noted the need to grant the poorest countries duty-free access to U.S. markets.

Given that education correlates to positive trends in society such as improved health, higher levels of economic growth, and increased democracy, Steve Hanson believes global education policy must be incorporated and coordinated with development policy. Scott Jackson, of the Rural Development Institute discussed the need to improve public-private partnerships in the development community. To ensure partnerships work as effectively as possible towards achieving development goals, Mr. Jackson offered the recommendation that a directory of all opportunities to work with the government be created. Such a tool would clearly delineate the roles of all organizations and facilitate a stronger public-private partnership.

The panel discussion ended with a speech by Maura O’Neill, the Chief Innovation Officer at USAID, calling on Washington State to harness its bountiful sources of innovation to work towards achieving development objectives. For local ownership of aid projects to work with sustainability, Ms. O’Neill believes a dialogue must be in place between donors and local leaders in which a free exchange of ideas exists. Simply fulfilling the requests of the locals can often be counterproductive to the goals of the development project. Ms. O’Neill also informed the audience of the current administration’s policy shift from a focus on basic education, to a focus on higher education. Another important concept of development Ms. O’Neill discussed was scale. The development community must learn how to build development models that can be scaled-up and apply to a larger population.

With such a large turnout from Washington State’s development sector, it is apparent that the issue of foreign aid reform is of paramount concern to the global development community. Hopefully, as this policy paper makes its way to the political arena of Washington, DC, policy makers will awaken to the pressing need of reforming the bloated and fractured U.S. foreign assistance structure.

To read the full version of our policy paper and other publications of Global Washington, please visit our website.