Delegation Reports
IPU-UN forum on The role of national and local stakeholders in contributing to aid quality and effectiveness, Rome
12 to13 June 2008
Report by Nigel Evans MP
Delegation
Jim Sheridan MP
Nigel Evans MP
Jim Sheridan and Nigel Evans represented the IPU at the conference relating to the quality and effectiveness of aid with emphasis on the delivery both nationally and locally.
Over 130 representatives of parliaments and civil society took part in the forum which took place over two days. A number of donor countries and recipient countries were involved in the discussions.
Countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Bolivia, Indonesia, Mexico, and a number of EU and African countries were present. Local Government was also represented in the forum with representatives from Australia, Rwanda, South Africa and Tanzania.
Civil society included Actionaid Afghanistan, Third world network Africa, and the Association of Italian NGOs. Experts from a number of governments, and organisations were also present.
The first day session was split into three breakaway groups. We attended the IPU session relating to the alignment of aid with national development strategies: The role of national and local stakeholders.
There was a general belief that parliaments should be adopting a stronger and fuller role when it comes to aid. It should not just be the domain of executives.
It was felt that there was insufficient communication between parliaments and interested organisations. All parliaments should have their own committees on international aid and that a report should be presented by the parliament every two years if not annually on international aid whether you be a recipient or donor country.
It was felt good governance and stability were essential to proper development goals being met. Corruption was seen as the enemy of aid being effective.
There was much disquiet that of $10 of aid that is given $8 makes its way back to the donor country and that was seen as unjust and contrary to the spirit of the aid.
Decentralisation of the aid was seen to be important, with transaction costs being reduced. The relationship between the donor and recipient should be seen as a true partnership and not the domination of the recipient by the donor. A true 50-50 partnership should be established.
Predictability of the aid would be beneficial to the recipient countries in making the aid more effective, and help to ensure proper capacity building.
Many complained that their own parliaments were poorly informed. Some lacked proper research facilities or libraries. Governments did not brief some parliaments at all, or spun superficial information to MPs. MPs therefore found it difficult to properly analyse the quality of the aid given.
Transparency was a key determinant for establishing the value of the aid. Freedom of Information Acts were seen as valuable in this regard.
Parliament was not asked to micro manage the aid that would not be appropriate. It was asked to take a greater interest in the aid programmes of their Government. Parliament should establish and set the strategies.
Some felt constant and thorough auditing of the aid to be vital.
Parliaments should also look at whether the aid is dealing with social exclusion.
Local Government hasn’t always got the expertise to manage aid projects but each country should look to their own circumstances as to the management of the aid, and to see at what is the appropriate level for the aid to be handled.
All speakers objected to conditionality on the aid as this was not seen to be democratic. Linking aid was to the benefit of the donor and not the recipient country. Procurement should be sourced within or as close to the recipient country as was possible. Local craftsmen and tradesmen should be used. Technical assistance should be untied.
Civil society also had to do its bit to ensure that they operated transparently.
A real distinction was made between distress aid and general aid. Distress aid eg the China earthquake had no ‘conditionalities’ put on to it. Burma was offered unconditional aid but refused much of it.
It was suggested that the working conditions of MPs should be improved in many countries in order that they could better do their job, especially in the monitoring exercise of aid in their countries.
The budgets of countries should be more open in order to show clearly how the aid was being spent.
Donor countries must talk more with civil society in counties in order to learn the aspirations of the country.
A certain percentage of aid should be targeted to local and regional government where possible.
Both Jim Sheridan and Nigel Evans contributed to the debate on UK Parliamentary scrutiny, select committees, freedom of the press, FOI Act, involvement with the EU, devolution, and National Audit office and debates and Questions. (Oral and written). Annual International Development reports are available. Clearly the UK experience on research both within MPs offices, and the library is amongst some of the best in the world.
Involvement of Trade Unions is important, as well as ethnic groups, women’s organisations, and the dispossessed.
It was generally felt as well that the level of development aid needed to be increased by a number of developed countries. Whilst this has happened with some countries the need for the cake to be much bigger than it is was apparent for all - especially in relation to access to clean water, medicines and education.
|
