|
Looking forward at 50
As OECD and the DAC celebrate 50th years of activity, it remains clear
that aid – if indeed just one tool for achieving development goals – can
serve as an important catalyst for progress. The DAC increasingly looks at
aid within the context of the broader issues of development – such as
conflict, investing in women and girls, building smarter partnerships and
financing climate change – to ensure that it is delivered effectively, and
that policies are sound, as well as coherent across the board. In addition,
OECD has recently been tasked to work with other international organizations
on six of the nine pillars of the G20’s new action plan for development – an
important vehicle for affirming the relevance of our work.
Go directly to:
News from the Cancun Climate Change Conference
Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: Actions that will make the
difference
We invite you to take a few minutes to visit
our new website at www.oecd.org/dac!
Explore this new window on our work, take a spin through the gallery
featuring highlights from the DAC over the past 50 years, or visit AidFlows,
produced in partnership.
Eckhard Deutscher steps down as DAC Chair
December 2010 marks the end of Eckhard Deutscher’s term as Chair of the
Development Assistance Committee; in January 2011, Brian J. Atwood will
assume this role. In parting, Mr. Deutscher reflects on his term as DAC
Chair, and on the challenges to come.
In January 2008, when I came to the DAC, the world was undergoing
far-reaching changes. It was becoming evident that while globalisation could
offer huge potential for development, if left to itself it could also cause
crises on a vast scale. During the three years of my term, the degree and
pace of change faced by human society manifested itself through profoundly
transformative events – from the food and fuel crises to the financial and
economic crisis and the emergence of the G20.
Yet despite the crises, development at a global level has continued to
advance, with emerging economies becoming the primary source of growth in
the world. Further down the income ladder, many countries are sustaining an
encouraging dynamic of growth, with rising potential to accelerate their
progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). A simple
aggregation of key indicators of the first seven MDGs highlights five
countries in sub-Saharan Africa as the top absolute MDG performers (ODI,
2010).
Looking more closely at this encouraging overall picture, however, we see
that recent years have also exposed vulnerabilities within and across
countries and that the poor are suffering disproportionately from the
crises. Development has stalled in a number of countries, with fragile
states most off track from meeting the MDGs – on average 40‐60% behind. And
while growth in developing countries offers the potential to lift hundreds
of millions of people out of abject poverty, this very growth risks becoming
a central factor in other major development challenges, such as climate
change, and food and fuel prices. Globalisation has brought unprecedented
development opportunities, but it has also created an unprecedented degree
of interdependence, and knock-on effects on developing countries are
becoming strikingly evident.
Meanwhile, the approach to development has been changing. While it is still
very much at the core of the international agenda, development today is less
defined through aid. There is a stronger emphasis on investment, trade and
domestic or market-based resource mobilisation in the strong-performing
countries, and on security, stability and international drivers of fragility
in the weak performers. And the number and different types of players
getting involved in development is increasing, contributing to a highly
complex picture.
As I hand over to my successor, the DAC – together with OECD – is
celebrating its 50 year anniversary. 2010 also marks the coming of age of
the
Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. As the world tackles new
development challenges in a rapidly changing global landscape, development
co-operation will need to evolve. I have set out
10 Theses on key dimensions
of the evolution it will need to undergo. Because development co-operation
will remain relevant, and indeed essential: the major challenges human
society faces this century can only be met if their development dimensions
are dealt with. In the 20th century, security affected all areas of
policy-making – in the 21st century, development will.
Growth and
development – for whom and by whom?
In a recent post to the
OECD Insights blog on the occasion of
the launch, at OECD headquarters in Paris, of the UNPD Human Development
Report, DCD’s Deputy Director Stephen Groff reflected on the significance of
the report’s figures – and on the G20’s growing development agenda.
UNDP’s
Human Development Report stresses that today’s development challenges
require a new outlook. Rather than trying to replicate past experience, we
need to focus on new opportunities. Rather than attempting to apply policy
prescriptions, we need to adapt general principles and guidelines to the
local context. And we must address major new challenges − in particular,
climate change − and build democratically accountable global institutions to
deal with them. Our analysis must go deeper, and we must carefully consider
the multidimensionality of development objectives.
The Human Development Index was one of the
first serious attempts to broaden the debate around just how we measure
development. Over time, the development community has moved from rather
simplistically equating increased GDP to development, to an array of
indicators for ranking how countries and people are faring. In recent years,
the debate has become much more pronounced with the
Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi commission and the OECD’s work on
measuring the progress of societies.
Measurements are important. They are our
means of defining success. But it is vital to consider development outcomes
in their multiple facets − not just poverty or income growth levels. Growth
is a means to an end and not an end in itself. The Human Development Report
confirms this central truth, and also makes it clear that there is no single
pathway to success. Each country must have the ownership, capacity and
resources to find their own solutions to their own development challenges.
In this respect, it is very positive to
see the G20’s growing focus on development. The G20 is uniquely placed to
provide leadership in advancing the international development agenda and
achieving the MDGs by improving their own policies, sharing their
development experiences, providing assistance to build capacity and offering
strategic guidance to international organisations. In Seoul (11-12 November
2010), the G20 adopted the
Seoul
Development Consensus for Shared Growth and an action plan comprising
nine pillars to promote growth in low-income countries.
Like the G20, the OECD takes a
comprehensive approach to development and knowledge sharing, engaging a
range of policy communities. We are pleased to be mandated by the G20 to
work closely with the UN, the World Bank and other international
organisations to contribute to implementing the Seoul action plan. The G20
approach to development is underpinned by a fundamental belief in the core
importance of growth. We agree that growth is a necessary component of
development, but believe that it is fundamental important to remember that
poverty reduction depends on the pattern, and not only the pace, of growth.
One of the key messages of the HDR - and one that I know the G20 will heed -
is that growth does not automatically equate to other aspects of
development.
We are keen to share our experience on
what makes growth benefit the poor − something we have been exploring for
years in the DAC and its
Network on Poverty Reduction. More generally, we will continue to put a
strong emphasis on measuring the progress of societies, because people, as
the HDR says, are the real wealth of nations.
News
from the Cancun Climate Change Conference
Two weeks of climate change discussions
concluded in the early hours of Saturday 11 December in Cancun. Despite some
lingering substantive concerns, a deal on climate change was reached under
the skilful chairmanship of the President of the
Conference of the Parties (COP16),
Patricia Espinosa, Mexico’s Foreign Minister.
Some people call the
Cancun Agreement a
modest deal and the fact is that the Summit may have done more to save the
UN negotiating process from collapse than protecting the planet against
climate change. Many more see this outcome as a good and necessary step
forward in the long journey of negotiation, however, and as good grounds for
hope.
Christiana Figueres, head of the UN’s
Climate Treaty affirmed: “Cancun has done the job! Nations have shown they
can work together under a common roof, to reach consensus on a common
cause.”
From the first day, Cancun was clearly
different from last year’s Copenhagen Summit: fewer heads of state and
government, less media and celebrities, and considerably lower expectations.
Nonetheless, the Mexican Government conducted a well disciplined and
extensive campaign aimed at restoring faith within and among the global
delegations. The commitment to a transparent and inclusive process was
reinforced throughout the two weeks, first by giving parties the opportunity
to bring forward views and wishes in each of the negotiating avenues, and
then in the final days by seeking ‘compromise text’.
The following are a few highlights from
the Cancun Agreement:
The Green Climate Fund was established to
address both fast-start and long-term financing. It creates a Standing
Committee under the COP, to be set up in 2011, that will assist parties in
overseeing operations. Poorer countries welcome this move, as they will
outnumber rich countries on the supervisory panel. Although no figure has
been set for how much money will go into it, Ministers confirmed the
political commitments they made in Copenhagen to raise USD100bn in climate
financing by 2020, starting with USD30bn by 2012 for fast-start financing.
Pledges by the rich countries to cut
greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 under the Copenhagen Accord were formally
put into UN documentation at Cancun. In addition, and for the first time,
developing countries agreed to look at how they can cut emissions in the
near future. None of the pledges, however, are legally binding and what’s
more, analysis[1] suggests that even if the pledges are fulfilled, there
will still be a 3.2 degree rise in temperature, much higher than scientists’
recommendations.
REDD (reducing emissions from
deforestation and degradation) – a long awaited decision – obliges rich
countries to pay poorer nations for curbing deforestation. While this sends
a clear signal that the international community is considering positive
incentives, details on when and exactly what form the scheme will take are
still vague.
Decisions on the future of the Kyoto
Protocol were effectively deferred until Durban next year. This
international treaty – which binds developed countries to cut emissions –
runs through 2012. Whether countries will sign up for a second period
remains to be seen.
With many details left to be ironed out,
the Durban Summit in 2011 will be faced with turning Cancun’s compromise
into a real action plan. The OECD-DAC has expertise to contribute in a
number of key areas, in particular on the urgent topic of climate financing:
monitoring ODA and other resource flows to developing countries; assessing
international public climate financial flows; advising on scaling up public
finance; analyzing how public policies can best leverage private flows;
joining-up government departments and demonstrating how lessons learned from
aid and development effectiveness can apply to climate change financing.
This knowledge and guidance – gathered over fifty years – can greatly
support the pledging countries in meeting their financial commitments.
OECD Secretary-General
Angel Gurría
underlined: “We cannot afford to delay action on climate change; the costs
and consequences are simply too high.”
For more information on OECD’s
participation and recommendations,
click here.
Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: Actions that will make the
difference
At the UN Millennium Development Goals
Summit (New York, 20-22 September 2010), the OECD organised a series of
side-events and materials to highlight key actions that can make the
difference in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Investing in women and girls to
achieve the MDGs: None of the MDGs will be achieved unless there is
greater equality between women and men and increased empowerment of women
and girls. This was clearly reflected in messages delivered at several
Summit events, as well as in the
Summit’s outcome document. In particular, increased investments in four
key areas will have catalytic and multiplier effects:
ensure that financial assets are in the
hands of women
keep girls in school
improve reproductive health and access to
family planning
support women's leadership.
Smarter partnerships to achieve
the MDGs: Smarter partnerships between development actors lie at
the heart of the success of the MDGs.
Recommendations
on building smarter partnerships – agreed upon at a
side event co-organised by the OECD – include:
strengthen inclusiveness and voice by
building partnerships that are real, effective and equal
keep promises by delivering on commitments
on aid, trade, debt, climate change and rights
improve development practice through
innovative and flexible solutions that are delivered coherently to
tackle inequality and reach the most vulnerable.
Addressing conflict, fragility and
armed violence: Countries affected by conflict and fragility are
furthest away from achieving the MDGs. The United Kingdom and Timor-Leste
partnered with the
International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding and the World
Development Report 2011 on Conflict, Security and Development to raise
awareness about the role conflict, fragility and armed violence play in
impeding MDG progress.
"We advocate a new paradigm as a means to
meeting the MDGs by placing peacebuilding and statebuilding at the forefront
of international engagement," said President José Ramos-Horta of
Timor-Leste.
Enhancing international investment
for climate change: To counter-act the threat that climate change
poses to achieving the MDGs, policy responses should mobilise finance while
maintaining international support for poverty reduction. Concrete actions
call to:
ensure complementarity between development
and climate change objectives, and mainstream climate change into all
aspects of national economic and development strategies
co-ordinate financing streams at the
global level
actively seek innovative financing options
to complement and leverage traditional financing sources for climate
change finance.
Preparations are well under way for
the Fourth High Level Forum(HLF4) in Busan (29 November to 1 December 2011),
where ministers and specialists will take stock of what has been advanced in
implementing the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and will be
expected to set out a new framework for increasing the quality of aid in the
broader development context. The pillars for assessing progress are the 2011
Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration and the second phase of the
independent Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration.
Monitoring the Paris Declaration:
Over 80 countries have confirmed their participation in the final round of
monitoring the Paris Declaration, which will take place in early 2011. In
late 2010, national co-ordinators and donor focal points from participating
countries familiarised themselves with the survey process and methodology
during a series of regional workshops. Co-organised by the OECD and UNDP,
the workshops were held in Cape Verde, Tunisia, Cambodia, Guatemala and
Jordan, providing an opportunity for partner countries to voice their
interests and expectations for the HLF4. The Paris Declaration Monitoring
Survey
dedicated website provides updates, information, materials and support
for national co-ordinators and donor focal points.
In addition, 14 countries and territories
have decided to take part in a survey of the DAC
Fragile States Principles. These Principles are complementary to the
Paris Declaration principles, adapting them to fragile states and providing
guidance on substantive themes such as statebuilding, peacebuilding,
security, and social inclusion for better development outcomes.
In the 14 countries and territories taking
part in both surveys, these have been integrated and share the same national
coordinator and donor focal points. In the final report that goes to the
HLF4, a single chapter for each country will capture the conclusions from
both surveys.
Evaluation of the Implementation
of the Paris Declaration: The evaluation of the implementation of
the Paris declaration at the country level is an independent process that
complements the Monitoring Survey. The results from the two processes will
deepen the understanding of progress and challenges in the implementation of
the Paris Declaration and help to assess why things did or did not work. The
Evaluation will also assess whether the implementation of the Paris
Declaration has strengthened the contribution of aid to sustainable
development results. Phase 1 of this Evaluation was conducted in 21 partner
countries in 2010, complemented by seven donor agency studies. The synthesis
report of Phase 2 of the Evaluation will be finalized in May 2011.
Read more.
Keep tuned to DACnews in 2011 for future
updates.
Since 2008, the DAC and the OECD Investment Committee have worked
together to deepen the understanding of how companies can invest in
countries where governments are unwilling or unable to assume their
responsibilities, especially when faced with risks or ethical dilemmas. An
important motivation for this work was the UN Expert Panel’s report on the
illegal exploitation of natural resources in the Democratic Republic of
Congo. The
International Network on Conflict and Fragility has helped to produce
Due Diligence in the Mining and Minerals Sector, OECD guidance on
investing in clean minerals in conflict zones. This follows on a bill passed
by the United States Congress on the same topic, and brings together
businesses, donors, governments of conflict-affected countries and advocacy
groups. Professor Peter Rosenblum of Columbia University explains the
importance of this guidance and shares his views on why this initiative is
so timely.
The conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo has proven to be
among the most destructive and intractable of the last decades. The numbers
testify to the extremes: over 5.4 million casualties, 19,000 UN troops
deployed in the world’s largest United Nations mission, costing over one
billion dollars yearly. OECD countries, in particular, have invested
billions of dollars seeking peace
in DRC, in the form of support for UN peacekeeping, bilateral assistance and
aid channelled through civil society organizations (CSOs).
Today the OECD is involved in a new initiative – a targeted one
compared to the grand engagements of the recent past: the drive for a “Due
Diligence Framework for Responsible Supply Chain Management of Minerals”.
The aim is to change the economic incentives of conflict by setting clear
standards for tracing the origins of raw materials, and thereby to help
guarantee the products that use them are not tainted. Donor fatigue
shouldn’t inhibit anyone from supporting this initiative, and the OECD is
well positioned to promote it.
Why is this so timely? The DRC elections in 2006 were supposed to mark
the end of conflict. And although most of the DRC is now at peace, the vast
swath of hilly territory along the border with Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi –
where the war began in 1996 – is one major exception. During the war, all
sides played a role in fuelling local armed groups for their own purposes.
So when the fighting officially stopped and foreign troops departed, an
entrepreneurial class of warlords was left behind in the east of the country
– deeply implanted in the society and with vested interests in the statu
quo – making it impossible to ignore the continuing horrors as armed
factions multiplied there.
Eastern DRC is spotted with metals such as gold, tin, tantalum and
tungsten. The latter three – which have become known as the “three Ts” for
their role in the conflict – are all widely used in the consumer electronics
industry, from mobile phones to laptops. The mines for these ‘conflict
minerals’ are mostly artisanal, spread out over difficult terrain and fed
into the world market though both legal channels and illegal smuggling.
Recent military efforts to change the dynamics of violence in eastern Congo
have only exacerbated the problem; and ironically, the rebound of the
international minerals market after the global downturn in 2008 made things
even worse.
The link between armed conflict and the mineral trade has been well
documented over the years by a United Nations Group of Experts that reports
to the Security Council, by CSOs like Global Witness and Human Rights Watch,
and more recently by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights (see
the report released 1 October 2010). The Corporate Social Responsibility
movement, which has been growing strongly for more than a decade, laid the
ground for this work. The work of John Ruggie, the UN Special Representative
on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other
Business Enterprises, gave a further boost to its legitimacy and reach. The
pressure brought to bear by the UN Group of Experts and CSOs has had an
impact on a range of companies connected with minerals from the Congo,
including metal producers and electronics firms. These companies have
recognized the need to protect their reputation, but their own industry
efforts have not been particularly fruitful. In this context, the OECD's
current engagement is particularly opportune.
The OECD initiative aims to provide guidance for companies that
operate at different points on the mineral supply chain that will help them
conduct due diligence to ensure their products are not fuelling conflict.
Behind the guidance is a multi-stakeholder engagement that has drawn
together mining and manufacturing companies, governments (OECD and
non-OECD), regulators and civil society organisations in continuous dialogue
over the course of a year. This process is already notable for having
successfully held together a wide array of frequent adversaries.
The OECD process was already well underway when it got its most recent
boost. Late this summer, the US Congress adopted a law specifically
addressed to the link between conflict and minerals in the DRC. The
Dodd-Frank Act, as this law is called, will be come into force next Spring,
making it essential for companies with securities traded in the United
States who buy minerals from eastern DRC to meet a number of disclosure
requirements. The US Securities and Exchange Commission has worked out the
regulatory details, referencing the OECD Guidelines. The passage of this law
puts an end to any hesitation companies may have had in addressing the
issues directly.
At
a consultation in Nairobi in late September, the extensive participation
of CSOs, governments, and corporations testified to the central place that
the Guidelines can play in the struggle to sever the link between conflict
and minerals in the DRC. Companies are pushing hard for manageable
guidelines that will give them reasonable protection from the actions of
lawmakers and CSOs. CSOs are equally anxious to have realistic guidelines
that can be implemented in eastern DRC – and implemented now. The risk of
not doing this is a de facto embargo on all minerals from the DRC,
and this is definitely not the desired outcome: clean minerals is.
The OECD initiative is getting buy-in from all sides, including
support from the eleven member countries of the DRC International Conference
on the Great Lakes Region (Lusaka Declaration, 15 December 2010), non-OECD
countries such as South Africa and the UN Security Council (Resolution 1952,
13 November 2010). Nonetheless, agreeing to the guidelines is only half the
process: getting them to work on the ground is the other half. The
engagement of the donor community, in particular, is central to:
raise awareness of the ‘clean minerals’ initiative in OECD countries
improve the coherence of policies from diverse departments of
governments in OECD countries
strengthen capacity on the ground to monitor the integrity of the
supply chain (seed funding, certification schemes, whistle blowing
mechanisms, capacity of local CSOs)
improve wider governance systems beyond the mineral sector, including
a working regulatory and judiciary framework, greater presence of the
state, improved tax collection and border management, and accountable
security forces.
With donors on board, the Guidelines could establish an excellent
model for Corporate Social Responsibility mechanisms and eliminate the last
incentives for conflict in the Congo.
India hosts OECD forum on public finance
The
OECD-DAC Task Force on Public Financial Management met in New Delhi on
December 15-16 to tackle one of the major barriers to development: lack of
capacity in public financial management (PFM). Hosting the meeting, Mr.
Vinod Rai, Comptroller & Auditor General of India, expressed his confidence
that this network will promote experience sharing for better targeting of
aid, resource mobilization, and sustainable debt management. The Auditor
General highlighted the importance of sharing experiences to ensure the
desired outcomes of public expenditure in partner countries.
Participants from 35 countries and institutions exchanged views on using,
assessing, and strengthening country PFM systems and accountability
institutions, including parliament. Partner countries also shared their
views on key messages for the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness
(29 November–1 December 2011, Busan, South Korea). Jon Lomoy, Director of
the OECD Development Cooperation Directorate, highlighted the need to
strengthen ‘networks of influence’ like this one to enable low income,
middle income and OECD countries to engage, exchange views, build consensus,
review best practices, and propose key findings and messages for
international fora such as the G20.
The meeting conclusions were reported in a number of news outlets in India
(see http://tinyurl.com/3423jv9;
http://tinyurl.com/2eu8b42).
Measuring aid for trade
Aid-for-trade experts reviewed the use of indicators for aid-for-trade
monitoring and evaluation on 22 October at OECD Paris headquarters, also
exchanging views on country efforts to improve results management by using
common indicators.
The
results of the joint OECD/WTO Aid-for-Trade Initiative can be measured in
three areas: greater awareness; increased aid-for-trade resources; and more
effective aid-for-trade interventions. The monitoring exercise has measured
progress in the first two dimensions in particular, and has embarked on the
third through a call for case stories to solicit information about what is
working and what is not at the national and regional level. Further work is
required in the area of results measurement, setting the stage for the
experts’ meeting. Indicators are a tool to assess at a glance the results of
aid-for-trade projects and programmes at country level.
New Zealand: New Zealand plans sharp increase in aid funding
New Zealand’s official development
assistance fell by 4% in 2009, to USD 313 million, but the country plans a
sharp increase over the coming years, according to a peer review of aid
policies by the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC).
Portugal: Improving aid policies, but volume remains low
Portugal will need to triple development
assistance over the coming five years if it is to meet an EU target of
giving 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) to aid by 2015.
Although Germany spent only 0.35% of its
national income (GNI) on official development assistance in 2009 – falling
short of its promise to raise the proportion to 0.51% by 2010 - it does
intend to keep its promise of increasing ODA to 0.7% of GNI by 2015.
The United Kingdom’s aid was USD 11.5
billion in 2009, representing 0.52% of its gross national income (GNI). Its
planned expenditures for 2010/11 put it on track to reach its target of 0.7%
of GNI by 2013.
The budget for Japanese development
co-operation has suffered years of decline. Now, a promising budget increase
in 2008 has been cancelled out by a sharp fall in the 2009 budget, according
to a peer review of Japan’s aid policies by the OECD’s Development
Assistance Committee (DAC).
The OECD’s Development Assistance
Committee (DAC) commends Belgium’s commitment to improve the quality and
volume of its aid, particularly at a time of global economic crisis. Belgium
spent USD 2.6 billion on official development assistance (ODA) in 2009,
which amounted to 0.55% of its gross national income (GNI).
Transition Financing: Building a Better Response,
Conflict and Fragility series: More effective, rapid and flexible transition financing through
an in-depth examination of current policies and practices in financial
flows, and recommendations on implementing procedural and cultural changes
in donor administrations to maximise the use of available financing.
OECD Journal on Development, Issue 3, Volume 10: The OECD Journal
on Development brings together a unique record of recent development
co-operation work undertaken by the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee
(DAC). This issue includes Development Co-operation Reviews of Ireland,
Austria and Sweden.
OECD Journal on Development, Issue 4, Volume 10: This issue
includes an article on division of labour in the aid system, and the DAC
Peer Reviews of Italy and Switzerland.
Products related to COP16:
Financing Climate
Change Action and Boosting Technology Change: Public and private
financing will need to be scaled up in the coming years – to USD30 billion
over 2010-12 and a longer-term goal of USD100 billion per year by 2020.
Addressing
International Competitiveness in a World of Non-Uniform Carbon Pricing:
Lessons from a Decade of OECD Analysis: How to tackle climate change is
not yet clear. International competitiveness of energy-intensive industries
could suffer if emission reduction targets are adopted in some countries but
not in others. Yet delaying or reducing action could be even more costly.
Costs and
Effectiveness of the Copenhagen Pledges: Assessing Global Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Targets and Actions for 2020: While the emission targets pledged
by a wide range of countries under the 2009 Copenhagen Accord are a good
start, they are not ambitious enough to limit the average global temperature
rise to 2°C.
Products related to the MDG summit:
Smarter partnerships for development: Partnerships lie at the heart of
MDG success stories. From public-private partnerships to South-South
co-operation, these alliances leverage maximum development impact from
development resources, including aid.
Achieving the MDGs - addressing conflict, fragility and armed violence:
Progress in MDG achievement has been slowest in fragile and
conflict-affected states: no fragile or conflict-affected country has yet
achieved a single Millennium Development Goal, and countries affected by
conflict and fragility account for the majority of the MDG deficit.
Accelerating progress toward achieving the MDGs will require a fundamental
and systemic shift in orientation.
Financing climate change challenges: Climate change effects threaten to
limit and even reverse progress towards the MDGs, especially among the
poorest. Policy responses to climate change risks require significant
investment that must be balanced with other development support.
Investing in women and girls: The breakthrough strategy for achieving
all the MDGs: None of the MDGs will be achieved unless there is greater
equality between women and men and increased empowerment of women and girls.
It is time to back political promises with the investments and resources
needed. Increased investments in four key areas will have catalytic and
multiplier effects.
Accelerating
Progress towards the MDGS through Pro-Poor Growth: Meeting the MDG
poverty reduction goals requires a pro-poor approach that emphasises
employment, social protection and empowerment.
Other products:
“Global
Governance for International Development: Who's in Charge?” by Brenda
Killen and Andrew Rogerson (July 2010): There is no single way in which
countries can agree on how to make their development more effective, and
make these decisions stick. This brief asks: how can this situation be
improved?
The DAC Policy Statement on Integrating Biodiversity and Associated
Ecosystem Services into Development Co-operation: Thirty key actions
that international donors can help to halt to loss of biodiversity and
associated ecosystems. Endorsed by the DAC on 15 April 2010.
Aid in Support of
Gender Equality in Fragile and Conflict-affected States: A brief
analysis of aid from DAC members in support of gender equality in fragile
and conflicted-affected states.
Integrating gender
equality dimensions into public financial management reforms: Using
gender-responsive budgeting to integrate a gender equality perspective into
public financial management in partner countries. OECD DAC countries' ODA in 2009 USD 120 billion up 1% in real terms and OECD
DAC Statistics including Aid at a
Glance charts for
DAC
members,
recipient
countries, and
by region.
About Us Subscribe/Unsubscribe Archive |
