Well Good morning to all, I`d like to echo and “second” the

Draft – International Forum welcome Monday Morning
15 min. approx.
Je souhaite la bienvenue à tous et toutes, en particulier à ceux et
celles qui sont venus de si loin pour participer à cette rencontre
exceptionnelle. Nous avons avec nous aujourd’hui des personnes
de tous les continents, provenant de 66 pays au total, en plus de
10 organisations multilatérales. Voilà tous les ingrédients
propices au dialogue et aux échanges. Je crois qu’au cours des
trois journées à venir, notre temps sera bien utilisé.
The organization with which I work in Canada – the Canadian
Council for International Co-operation – is the principal
platform (a membership body) for Canada-based NGOs working
in international development cooperation.
So the subject area for this distinguished international forum –
“Civil Society and Aid Effectiveness” - has (for someone like
me) a sort of spooky familiarity to it.
1
Civil Society groups – as you might imagine - can’t get enough
of this subject. They spend a lot of their time in and around
issues of aid policy and aid effectiveness.
And this broad discussion of the efficacy of aid – its impact for
poverty reduction - is as pervasive as it is compelling.
Les bailleurs de fonds et les États partenaires ont approuvé la
Déclaration de Paris il y a trois ans déjà. Une poignée
d’organisations non gouvernementales, dont le CCCI, étaient du
nombre en mars 2005; or, concernant l’appropriation du
programme et sa mise en application, on leur a accordé une
mince part du gâteau.
La Déclaration de Paris se veut, bien entendu, un énoncé des
engagements visant à fournir une aide adéquate afin d’alléger le
fardeau qui pèse sur les pays en développement et accroître
l’incidence des activités de développement pour qu’en bout de
ligne, l’aide soit moins imprévisible et plus fiable. Ce sont là de
bonnes idées.
2
Voici les cinq principes formulés :
• la prise en charge locale;
• l’alignement sur les systèmes des pays;
• l’harmonisation des pratiques des donateurs;
• la gestion axée sur les résultats; et
• la responsabilité mutuelle.
Il s’agit de principes importants dont le premier, la « prise en
charge locale », a le potentiel de transformer le régime de l’aide,
surtout si on le considère du point de vue du processus
démocratique. Et, de par leur nature, ces principes englobent de
nombreux concepts. Toutefois, la transition de l’écrit vers
l’action est passée sous silence.
This is because the principles are – in the main – about the
plumbing and mechanisms – the ways and means of the global
aid project. The implementation of these principles have tended
to focus on developing and measuring cost effective ways of
managing aid rather than assessing the substantive contribution
of aid to development itself.
3
Perhaps this is to be expected because Paris and the
development of new approaches to aid effectiveness have been
primarily an inter-governmental affair.
But for civil society (and I expect many of you) “development
itself”– is the compelling and elusive target. It’s a subject the
world can’t let go – isn’t it?
Our meeting here today is firmly situated in the context of Paris.
But Paris has its own – and a broader – context.
• The Millennium Development Goals where the world’s
nations promised they would “spare no effort” to
addressing the challenges of global poverty.
• The Doha Development Round – trade talk dedicated (in an
ill fated way) to addressing the challenges of arrested
development.
• The New Economic Partnership for Africa (NEPAD) and
the G-8 “Action Plan for Africa” (in 2002, here in Canada,
at Kananaskis).
4
• The Financing for Development Conference in Monterrey
(also 2002) – up for review later this year.
• The Blair Commission on Africa leading to the 2005 G-8
meeting in Edinburgh
• Around the world the Global Call to Action Against
Poverty – then and now – campaigns for More and Better
Aid, Trade Justice and the Cancellation of the debt of the
world’s poorest countries.
It is certainly no bad thing that our world can’t get enough of the
complexities of aid effectiveness. They need to be discussed and
debated with patience and determination. And interestingly
some of this has – in the last year – been happening on the road
to this International Forum on Civil Society and Aid
Effectiveness.
5
Ici, à Gatineau, au Québec, pendant les trois prochains jours,
nous aurons tous la chance de prendre part à un échange d’idées
structuré et unique qui alimentera le rapport que le Groupe
consultatif sur la société civile et l’efficacité de l’aide soumettra
à l’occasion du Forum de haut niveau sur l’efficacité de l’aide à
Accra.
Le présent Forum fait suite aux remarquables démarches
entreprises par le Groupe consultatif pour lancer six
consultations régionales à intervenants multiples en octobre et
novembre, dont cinq ont été organisées par des partenaires de la
société civile du Sud. Votre dossier de documentation comprend
un rapport de synthèse des consultations. Le Groupe consultatif
a également amené la réalisation de nombreuses consultations
nationales concernant des questions liées à la société civile et à
l’efficacité de l’aide, et bon nombre des organisations ayant
participé aux consultations régionales et nationales sont parmi
nous aujourd’hui. Applaudissons le Groupe consultatif d’avoir
encouragé de tels efforts de mobilisation et favorisé la
réalisation des débats et des échanges qui nous attendent.
6
It’s clear to me that – in the coming days – as we think about
development cooperation and the aid regime the question being
invited is “What about citizens?” – and the organizations and
movements that they create? What is their role in the kind of
development that is imagined in the Paris Declaration? What
about civil society?
Paris largely forgot and by-passed civil society in favor of the
plumbing and put – as I mentioned earlier – a focus on
developing and measuring the mechanisms of delivering aid by
governments, rather than assessing the substantive contribution
of these principles and mechanisms for aid to development
itself.
What is the contribution made by civil society – on the
substantive side of things? What is it that civil society provides
that other parts of the development equation do not?
Civil Society is a unique development actor, different from
governments and official donors, marked by its diversity and
range – some groups are membership based, others cause
7
oriented, some focus on service provision. Diversity, difference,
disparity in size, mandate and resources – all characterize CSOs.
But the thing that gives an air of “family resemblance” to almost
all members of civil society is that they all pretty much end up
working in (what you might call) “social solidarity”… alongside
and connected to those who are poor and excluded… with the
objective of helping citizens claim their rights and accountability
from governments and national and (even) global institutions.
Nous savons que ces actions soulèvent la critique à l’égard des
OSC, mais telle est leur raison d’être.
Pour la société civile, l’évaluation de l’aide se base sur la
capacité de faire respecter la justice sociale et économique,
l’égalité entre les sexes et les droits de la personne. Elle cherche
à déterminer la mesure dans laquelle l’aide améliore les
conditions favorables au développement complet des personnes
et des communautés.
8
And when civil society makes a positive contribution to all this
it is, very often (maybe always), linked to its combined abilities
to do a range of things:
• Mobilize grass roots communities
• Deliver services and development programming with in
appropriate and local ways
• Build coalitions and networks for greater policy and
programming coordination & impact
• Leverage and mobilize northern aid resources through N/S
partnerships.
How these kinds of relationships and competencies connect with
the emerging vision of development inherent in documents like
the Paris Declaration will be a key area of reflection for us here
in the coming days.
Let’s revisit those principles:
9
How do CSOs, and their contribution to peoples’ mobilization,
activism & local empowerment, interpret the idea of “country
ownership” in the Paris principles? If civil society really is a
school for citizenship – then engaging civil society moves us all
towards democratic ownership.
Aid may be aligned with national development strategies and
approaches but to what extent are these national strategies
aligned with the international human rights obligations of donors
and countries…to what extent are they aligned with the
expressed agendas of communities?
Harmonization of donor efforts – (program based approaches
and pooled funding). Yes, it helps build scale but does it set up a
bias against smaller (maybe indigenous) civil society groups
that don’t fit in with pre-determined priorities and may end up
excluded from their own development processes?
About management for results. Will there be enough
transparency, & timeliness to allow civil society to effectively
monitor the practices and policies of donors and governments?
10
Will the debate about “results” embrace the contribution of aid
to development effectiveness or are we talking only about the
management of aid flows?
How do you get mutual accountability (and shared
accountability) for development results between donors and
states without a mutual commitment to transparency and
reporting? And how transparent is this from the point of view of
citizens, parliaments, and the media?
And when it comes to civil society itself – in the complex
matrix of our own relationships how does mutual accountability
work?
For civil society groups Accountability is a complex map.
We are accountable sometimes to members…to a donating
public….to governments and back-funders…to constituencies in
marginalized communities and, of course, to each other when
we work in partnership and coalitions. Upward, downward and
lateral accountabilities.
11
Are we ready to challenge ourselves- and be challenged - with
the question of whether we are committed to the range and the
rigor of accountability that is implied by our role and identity in
social solidarity?
These are just a few questions, a few of the notions that may get
some exercise and reflection in the next several days.
We, of course, we don’t know what will emerge to mark the
discussions that we will have here in the coming days. But as
others, before me have pointed out – this Forum is a truly unique
opportunity bringing together on a relatively equal footing –
developing country government representatives, official donors
and CSOs from both North and South.
I think we are all hoping for an effective process in the next few
days in which ideas are shared and challenged and improved. I
think we should also hope for concrete ideas that will move the
aid effectiveness agenda forward.
12
At the very least – and this is substantial – we have constructed
a joint space for dialogue. And this is a precedent.
I know that you will share with me the conviction that we have
this remarkable opportunity …for
• a dialogue that can enrich our understanding of civil society
as development actors
• identifying ways in which this sector can most effectively
make remarkable contributions to our shared objective of
more effective aid spending and
• (finally and foremost) to poverty reduction and a more
sustainable and promising future for all the world’s
citizens.
Encore une fois, bienvenue à tous et toutes et place aux
délibérations !
13