Introduction:

The issue the planned CALD conference seeks to address is ‘public accountability in ODA’. Accountability usually refers to an institution’s responsibility to its clients as well as to its governing body. When it comes to ODA, which involves a publicly funded donor agency and a recipient government, accountability is complex and problematic. The donor agency must be responsible to a donor government or governments and they in turn must be responsible to parliament and ultimately to their electors. The recipient government must be seen as responsible to donors, to the recipient community, the parliament and the public at large. How do these multiple elements of accountability mesh together? Must a donor government or agency be held accountable if a recipient government or agency misuses aid? How can accountability be strengthened?

This problem is not new and not confined to the Asian region. In the past few decades the so-called third world countries, transformation economies and nations recovering from war and natural disaster have received multi-lateral and bi-lateral ‘aid’. Some have come to rely on ODA for their very survival, others who once were ODA recipients are increasingly seeking to project a different image, as donors rather than recipients. Within the region and since the post war period, Japan has projected an image as donor. Singapore, until recently, for many years had been reluctant to be identified as a developed country and consequently be drawn into the donor community. On the other hand, Malaysia and Thailand are now actively seeking recognition of their transition from recipients to donors. In the case of humanitarian assistance, as in the case of the recent Indian Ocean Tsunami, countries such as India in the beginning rejected foreign aid but instead played the role of a donor and provided assistance to other affected countries. 

The massive devastation caused by the Indian Ocean Tsunami in late December 2004 raises interesting questions about Official Development Assistance in the region. By mid January 2005 some 5 billion US dollars had been pledged to assist the tsunami-affected countries. In contrast, a day and a half after the South Asia earthquake in early October 2005, donations pledged for aid relief were only about 10% of those pledged for the tsunami event, over a similar period. Regardless of the difference in donor reaction, these pledges are at one level needed for massive immediate humanitarian relief assistance, but at another level it is clear that it is also directly related to the long term reconstruction and development needs. The accountability problem is a central feature of both these forms of aid. Thus the accountability mechanisms that are employed in both forms of aid may provide useful insights into accountability issues that both sectors face.

The conference is intended to raise the issues, search for good practices and provide practical assistance, in particular to politicians and parliamentarians seeking to promote good governance and concerned to grapple with accountability in ODA.  

Conference Objectives

1.       To identify best practices with regard to public accountability associated with ODA

2.       To identify the approaches to accountability adopted by major donor institutions

3.       To enable participants to develop a mature view of the problems of accountability (going beyond the denunciation of ‘irresponsible’ donors and ‘corrupt’ governments!).  

4.       To identify innovative trends and tools in combating the misuse of aid, including the role for parliaments, political parties, media and civil society.

5.       To identify appropriate tools for monitoring ODA, ensuring transparency and involving public participation.

Target Audience

The meeting is aimed primarily at policy makers in the Asian region. Some sixty parliamentarians from 15 countries in the region are expected to attend this meeting. Special efforts will be made to invite parliamentarians sitting on committees for development assistance.

Speakers’ Profile

Speakers and presenters will be invited from major multilateral and bilateral donor agencies, governments, audit offices, parliaments as well as experts from international agencies working in the field of good governance and accountability.

Conference Themes

1. ODA and public accountability

What is ODA? What is commonly understood when one talks about ODA? Have there been changes in the types of ODA over the years? What does one mean when we speak of ODA in the Asian region. Are the types of ODA for the region different from other regions? What is meant by public accountability and what special meanings and mechanisms are applied to accountability when it relates to official bilateral and multilateral aid? Does accountability mean the same as good governance? Does accountability relate primarily to lack of transparency and corruption? Or does accountability include those practices that also seek to ensure that inefficiency and wastage does not occur. Can issues of misallocation of aid also come under the purview of accountability? Do we also need to make a distinction between “accountability” and “public accountability”? Are conditionality and accountability inter-related? Even in disaster situations, it has become more and more evident that even relief assistance does not necessarily come without strings attached. Some countries are linking the aid to human rights, others want their own contractors involved in rebuilding efforts and yet others are giving aid in the form of loans. Donor countries also are using corruption in the recipient countries as an excuse to justify their own active role in aid distribution. Should aid be conditional to guarantee accountability?

2. International organisations and innovative approaches to public accountability

A variety of international agencies have been running good governance, accountability and anti-corruption programmes at the macro levels. Such agencies work with governments, various agencies within government, political parties, NGOs and other relevant organisations and personnel to disseminate anti-corruption awareness programmes as well as providing the tools and expertise to combat lack of transparency and public participation. However, these programmes tend to be general in nature, and do not address the issue from the specific perspective of ODA. Hence, what are the relevant programmes and practices related to the issue of ODA? Do good governance and accountability programmes for managing ODA exist? If they don’t, should they be introduced?

3. Concepts and best practices – The Challenges Faced by Donors

Many donor agencies that provide aid increasingly work into their provision of aid procedures and measures that seek to ensure that accountability questions are taken into account by both donor agencies as well as recipient countries. What are some of the challenges and difficulties involved from the donor agency perspective by working into their aid provisions mechanisms to ensure accountability? Are such measures of accountability internal or do they involve some measure of “public” accountability? Should donors be accountable? Do donors think they have fully implemented agreements like the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness of February 2005? Are donors willing to subject themselves to independent mechanisms of accountability?

4. Perspectives from recipient countries and implementing agencies

Recipient countries and implementing agencies who are at the receiving and distribution end of ODA have a different perspective to issues of accountability. How do the issues of public accountability shape up from their end of the spectrum? Do they practice transparency or employ monitoring mechanisms? What are the challenges in ensuring that ODA gets to the people who need it while at the same time ensuring issues of accountability are addressed? What are the experiences of different recipient countries and implementing agencies?

5. Strengthening the role of media and civil society

In many initiatives concerning the fight for good governance practices, the media and civil society are harnessed as partners in the accountability process. How can civil society and the media help to ensure that ODA is designed and used in an accountable manner? As part of the crime-busting and corruption-fighting role of the media, investigative journalism has helped expose transgressions in ODA accountability. How can NGOs and the media, in donor and recipient countries, play a constructive role in ensuring effective accountability in ODA? How can donor and facilitating NGOs, for their part, demonstrate their own accountability?

6. Strengthening the role of parliament and politicians: Perspectives from donor countries & recipient countries

This session will provide an opportunity for parliamentarians and politicians to present how they and their parliaments pursue the issue of accountability with regards to ODA. The different perspectives from parliaments in donor and recipient countries will be explored as well as the perspectives of politicians in power and those in opposition. These can also include the presence of auditing agencies within each country. The discussion can highlight the screening and monitoring of ODA by parliaments or parliamentary commissions, the passing of legislation to combat corruption in ODA, the use of “motions” in Parliament to debate particular issues of accountability. It may also include capacity building programmes for parliaments to curb corruption that are developed by international organisations and NGOs.