Eun Mee Kim* & Jae Eun Lee*** Dean & Professor, Graduate School of International Studies

Director, Institute for Development and Human Security** Researcher, Institute for Development and Human Security

Ewha Womans University

“2014 Australasian Aid and International Development Policy Workshop”

Australian National University & the Asia Foundation

February 13-14, 2014

Please do not cite, quote or distribute without the authors’ written permission.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction II. From Aid to Development EffectivenessIII. New Global PartnershipIV. South Korea’s Challenges as an Emerging DonorV. Asian Approaches to Development Cooperation

2

I. IntroductionGlobal Partnership for Effective Development

New global development cooperation framework launched Growing importance of emerging donors’ influence in

development activities South Korea as an emerging donor

Joined OECD DAC as 24th member Hosted G20 Summit Meeting (2010) & Busan HLF-4 (2011)

Led discussion and efforts towards a new global framework Encouraged participation of emerging donors (including BRICs)

Steering Committee of Global Partnership Representative of providers of development cooperation (with

EU and US)

3

II. From Aid to Development Effectiveness1. Evolution of Aid Effectiveness Framework Millennium Development Goals by 2015 Monterrey Consensus (2002)

Commitment to increase development finance ODA/GNI = 0.7%

HLF-1 (First High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness)Rome (2003) Need for more effective management of aid for

maximization of development impactLed by OECD/DAC WP-EFF Aid Harmonization

4

HLF-2, Paris (2005) Paris Declaration endorsed

5 Principles: Ownership, Alignment, Harmonization, Results-based Management, Mutual Accountability

Practical and action-oriented roadmap by 2010: Goals with specific indicators & target years, monitoring process

HLF-3, Accra (2008) Accelerate and deepen implementation of the Paris

Declaration Three areas for improvement: Ownership, Inclusive Partnership,

Delivering Results

5

Analysis of the Paris Declaration Monitoring Survey (OECD, 2011):Real, but slow and uneven results Real changes in aid management and delivery practicesParis Principle as global norms for development

cooperation Targets far from being universally achieved

An Increasingly Complex Development Environment New Global Development Challenges including food

insecurity, climate change and armed conflict Enlarging role for different actors and stakeholdersAid as a catalyst of development - complementary to other

development resources

6

2. HLF-4, Busan (2011) The most inclusive agreement on global development

cooperation 2,500 participants: (1) 160 donor and partner countries including

South-South partners; and (2) 70 international organizations, NGOs, congresses, and business corporations

Negotiating status given to diverse development stakeholders on an equal footing: NGOs, business corporations

Reaffirmed commitment for MDGs and sustainable development

7

“Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation” (Outcome Document) Shared Principles:

Ownership of development priorities by developing countries Focus on results Inclusive development partnerships Transparency and accountability

Shared Principles of ownership, results and accountability are directly derived from the Paris Principle

New Commitments: Inclusive partnerships; Transparency

8

Busan HLF-4: Incorporating aid effectiveness and development effectiveness

Commitments for Effective Development: South-South

Cooperation & Triangular Cooperation

Private Sector and Development

Combating Corruption and Illicit Flows

Climate Change Finance

Commitments for Effectiveness of Development Cooperation: Ownership, Results and

Accountability Transparent and

Responsible Cooperation Sustainable Development

in Situations of Conflict and Fragility

Strengthening Resilience and Reducing Vulnerability

9

Focus shifts from technical aid effectiveness towards new development effectiveness agendaDevelopment effectiveness is a progressively more

ambitious agenda, more complex, and can create difficulties in operationalization and evaluation

Concerns about the unfinished business of Paris and AccraGlobal Partnership for Effective Development

Cooperation as the New Framework is launched (June 2012)

10

III. New Global Partnership (June 2012- ) 1. Governance

(1) Ministerial MeetingReviews progress in implementing Busan commitmentsMeets every 18-24 months, alternating back-to-back with UNCDF (UN

Capital Development Fund) and OECD DAC High Level Meetings (2) Steering Committee

Steers the work of the ministerial meeting including strategic priorities and agenda

Acts as Ambassadors of Global Partnership to other international/regional processes

3 Co-Chairs and 15 Steering Committee Members 11

Ministerial Meeting

Steering Committee

Secretariat: OECD/ UNDP

Agenda & Priorities

Tasks & Assignments

Guidance

Support

Support

(3) Secretariat: OECD & UNDP UNDP will partner with OECD to support the new framework

UNDP newly joined the secretariat for the new framework Helps strengthen legitimacy of the HLF process and the new framework for universal rules and norms Division of labor:

OECD: Analytical expertise UNDP: Brings breadth based on international development work in the field

12

(4) Monitoring Indicators and Process Global Monitoring of the Busan Partnership

Participation of South-South providers in the monitoring framework is voluntary

10 Indicators: Efforts to reduce burden associated with collecting data Indicators on civil society, private sector, and gender equality newly introduced Indicators on civil society & private sector to be further discussed and detailed definitions and measurement issues to be finalized by late 2012 (Hong 2012)

Target Year: 2015

13

14

Paris Principle HLF-4 Shared Principles

HLF-4 Commitments for Effective DC

HLF-4 Commitments for Effective Development

HLF-4 Indicators for Monitoring

Ownership Ownership Ownership, Results and Accountability

South-South and Triangular Cooperation

Results

Alignment Focus on Results Transparent and Responsible Cooperation

Private Sector and Development

Civil Society

Harmonization Inclusive Development Partnerships

Sustainable Development in Conflict and Fragile Situations

Combating Corruption and Illicit Flows

Private Sector

Managing for Results

Transparency and Accountability

Resilience and Reducing Vulnerability

Climate Change Finance Transparency

Mutual Accountability

Predictability

Parliamentary Scrutiny

Mutual Accountability

Gender Equality

Effective Institutions - Using developing countries’ system

Aid Untying

Comparison of HLF Principles

2. Remaining Challenges (1) “Loose alliance” in order to encourage participation of emerging donors

“Differentiated commitments” to encourage South-South partners’ participation in the new framework

Reduce commitments to common principles as “voluntary” for South-South Cooperation of BRICS

(2) Need to ensure monitoring of implementation(3) Follow-up Process

Impact of the Busan Partnership depends on follow-upEnsure that monitoring indicators are applied to traditional

donors and gradually extended to other HLF-4 stakeholders (Oxfam 2012)

15

IV. South Korea’s Challenges as an Emerging Donor 1. Leadership in the Steering Committee

Further strengthen South-South partners’ political commitment Contributed to active participation of South-South partners in the Busan Partnership Bridging Role between traditional and emerging donors

Steering Committee South Korea is 1 of 3 representatives of Providers of Development CooperationCo-Chairs (Ministerial Level):

Ms. Armida Alisjahbana, Minister of State for National Development Planning, Indonesia Ms. Justine Greening, Secretary of State for International Development, U.K. Ms. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Minister of Finance, Nigeria

Steering Committee Members (Senior Level): Representatives of Recipients (5), Recipient and Providers (1), Providers (3) of

Development Cooperation, Private Sector (1), Parliamentarians (1), Civil Society (1), Multilateral Development Banks(1) , UNDP/UNDG (1), and OECD/DAC (1)

16

Steering Committee Members

17

Recipients (5) Mr. Brahim Adoum Bachar, Secretary General, Ministry of Economy and Planning Chad

Mr. Luis Fernando Carrera Castro, Secretary for Planning and Programming, Presidency Guatemala

Mr. Iqbal Mahmood, Senior Secretary, Ministry of Finance Bangladesh

Ms. Noumea Simi, Assistant Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of Finance Samoa

Mr. Helder da Costa, Director of the International Secretariat of the G7+, Ministry of Finance

Timor-Leste

Recipients & Providers (1)

Mr. Luis Olivera, Executive Director, Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI) Peru

Providers (3) Mr. Gustavo Martin Prada, Director EC

Ms. Enna Park, Director General for Development Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

South Korea

Mr. Donald Steinberg, Deputy Administrator, US Agency for International Development U.S.

Private Sector (1) John Sullivan, Center for International Private Enterprise

Parliamentarians (1) Mr. Martin Chungong, Director, Division of Programmes, Inter-Parliamentary Union

Civil Society (1) Ms. Mayra Moro-Coco, BetterAid

Multilateral Development Banks (1)

Ms. Sophie Sirtaine, Director, Corporate Reform and Strategy, Operations Policy and Country Services, World Bank

UNDP/UNDG(1) Ms. Sigrid Kaag, Assistant Secretary General and Assistant Administrator, Bureau for External Relations and Advocacy, UNDP

OECD/DAC (1) Mr. Brian Atwood, Chair, Development Assistance Committee, OECD

2. Develop National Strategy for Global PartnershipReform policies and processes for development cooperationMore coherent and harmonized approach based on agreement by diverse actors

18

3. Strengthen Political Support for ODA Strong political commitment of the new President (2013-)Reaffirmation of goals of South Korea’s ODA: Volume and Global leadershipContinued improvement of the Aid System Increase participation and involvement of CSOsHuman resource building at home: Education and training of development cooperation experts

19

V. Asian Approaches to Development Cooperation1. Asian Development

1) Rapid Economic Development • Developmental State• Education• Foreign aid utilized for domestic institution and human

capacity development Domestic Capability Development

20

2) Key institutions of Japan, South Korea, China

21

Japan South Korea China

Period of Rapid Industrialization

1945-1974 1961-1980 1978-1992

Key Institu-tions

Government(Developmental State)

Ministry of Int’l Trade and Industry (MITI)

Economic Planning Board (EPB)

National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)

Local Capital Zaibatsu, Keiretsu Chaebol State-owned enterprises (SOEs)

Foreign Capital

•ODA •Trade

•ODA •Trade

•ODA•FDI•Trade

2. Asian Development Cooperation1) Transition from aid recipient to donor 2) Regional Development: Use ODA for building regional economic relationship and development in Asia3) ODA in Comprehensive Development: ODA as part of a larger economic development stimulus package including foreign direct investment (FDI) and trade

“Asian Solutions to Asian Problems”

22

Japan South Korea

China Australia

ODA

Total gross disbursements(USD million)

10,831.4 1,324.6 41.5 4982.9

Asia share (%) 22.5 47.4 32.8 33.4

Trade

Total volume(USD million)

1,678,564 1,079,627 3,641,865 565,273

Asia share (%)*(Export vs. Import)

18.4 vs. 20.6

12.4 vs. 12.6

42.4 vs. 40.8

-

FDI

Total outward flow(USD million)

114,353 20,355 65,177 12,655

Asia share (%) 34.8 59.5 - -29.3**

23

Asian Cooperation:Overview of ODA, Trade and FDI Flows of Japan, South Korea

and China (2011)

Source: ODA Gross Disbursements- International Development Statistics; Chinese ODA – 2011 China’s White Paper on Foreign Aid.

Trade- World Bank.FDI- United Nations Conference on Trade and Development FDI Statistics; OECD Statistics for Asia share.* Asia share includes trade from and to member countries of ASEAN +3. ** Asia’s inflow of FDI is greater than its outflow.

3. Asia’s Post 2015 Development Challenges 1) Development Cooperation in Post-War and Conflict Context

Countries in fragile situations face triple challenges of human insecurity, underdevelopment and poverty

Human (in)security, development, and poverty are closely connected and mutually reinforcing

• Conflict is an important cause that has led to increase in poverty … [and] affects well-being through displacement of people from their home and livelihoods as refugees and into poverty (MDG Report, 2008)

• Fragile states are caught in a vicious cycle of failed government, persistent poverty, and conflict (Collier, 2007)

Bridging security and development in development cooperation: Poverty reduction and development in the context of fragile security and post-conflict require different goals and strategies.

2) Humanitarian Assistance and Development Cooperation Short-term humanitarian assistance and long-term development

cooperation have not been brought together in the field. However, disasters have disproportionately affected the least

developed and developing countries. Meeting the MDGs is severely challenged in many countries by losses from manmade and natural disasters (UNDP, 2004).

Short-term disasters exacerbate existing poverty and insecurity They become long-term poverty and insecurity cases.

Bridging the divide between short-term humanitarian assistance and long-term development cooperation is critical in the Post 2015 world.

3) Human Capacity Development and Empowerment Gender inequality remains a challenge Improvements in gender development (education, employment) have

not led to gender empowerment Concerted efforts are needed to improve gender empowerment for

sustainable development and poverty reduction to be: “fair, smart, and transformative of societies” (Faust, 2013).

Post 2015 Development Cooperation:Domestic capability development (education + employment +

empowerment) Sustainable development

26

27