Jennifer del Rosario-Malonzo, Executive Director of IBON International, delivered the collective messages of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee and civil society organisations (DAC-CSO) Reference Group at the Annual DAC-CSO Dialogue Meeting held on 18 November 2024. This year’s dialogue focused on four key elements of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda: governance and architecture, official development assistance, development effectiveness, and private finance mobilisation.
Thank you to the DAC members and the DCD for organising this meeting in the spirit of open conversations, as part of the DAC-CSO Dialogue Framework. We hope to address you today regarding the upcoming Fourth UN Financing for Development Conference (FfD4), and look forward to hearing your views on civil society visions and proposals regarding this. We aspire renewed global action that, beyond the roadmap in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, adopts a transformative approach responsive to the current challenges, in ensuring that the financial divide does not solidify into a structural barrier that leaves people behind.
Our dialogue takes place amid the process towards the FfD4 Elements Paper, with submissions from a wide range of actors already available. We look forward to collectively understanding the Elements Paper once it is finalized and to exploring what lies ahead.
Years ago, the DAC began its ODA modernization process where definitions, eligibility, criteria, and even the measurement of what counts as ODA are discussed. What could have been a critical process for reform turned out to be a deeply concerning process for civil society.
The process, instead, reflected the DAC’s changing priorities for aid, which are being driven by widening donor foreign policy preoccupations: the inclusion of global public goods in aid (such as mitigation climate finance); the focus on new and unproven modalities using scarce aid resources (like private sector instruments); and the accompanying artificial expansion of ODA through changing rules governing ODA (like growing in-donor refugee costs and generous grant equivalencies for loan finance).
Today, civil society asks, how did we fare in this modernization process in terms of fulfilling ODA’s mandate and original development vision?
While we acknowledge the past and present role of OECD-DAC in shaping the landscape of ODA and development co-operation, proposals have emerged from civil society for a broader decision-making process towards inclusive, transparent, and critical discussions on ODA norms, rules, reporting standards, volumes, and quality.
In relation to this, aside from the potential risks the DAC Chair mentioned, we hope the DAC and its members also consider the opportunities from the emerging CSO demand for a United Nations (UN) Convention on International Development Cooperation, as a new normative framework that can protect the mandate and advance the next stage for development co-operation today. This comes from an understanding that the United Nations remains the most appropriate venue in setting a more accountable atmosphere, with widespread agreement within the CSO community on the need for substantial reforms. In creating this normative framework, donor countries and member states will be held more accountable in fulfilling their aid commitments and Global South’s needs will be the true core of development cooperation.
As a prospective part of such a Convention, CSOs also propose converting the unmet ODA commitments, which are in the trillions, as a debt owed to the global South. How do the DAC and its members view such a proposal to decisively address quantity issues, amid the continuing gaps in meeting ODA commitments?
Has the modernisation process enabled the DAC to truly safeguard ODA, uphold its integrity, and ensure that it is allocated for its unique role in facilitating the reduction of poverty and inequalities? The invitation for the DAC is to consider new approaches for ring-fencing the purpose and modalities of ODA to ensure its exclusive contribution to eradicating poverty and reducing inequalities, with legal and policy frameworks that establish strict accountability of ODA priorities towards addressing the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable populations. The recent announcements of ODA cuts by an increasing number of donors, at a time of urgent and growing needs, particularly in conflict contexts, is also very worrying.
To conclude, let me note that we are holding this dialogue on ODA and development at a time of challenging shifts in the political landscape.
The rise of right-wing politics have been driving the continued shrinking of space for CSOs and their work. We fear that some DAC members’ support for diverse, independent CSO work might wane, compounded by increasingly prescriptive funding mechanisms that narrow CSO autonomy. Towards FfD4, we must ask: how can we encourage DAC governments to foster a broader support network that addresses both timely imperatives—like climate justice and gender equality—while sustaining the work of varied CSOs as development actors?
Furthermore, the pressing needs for humanitarian assistance, as starkly illustrated by crises like that in northern Gaza, emphasize the importance of independent humanitarian action. As ODA becomes more intertwined with foreign policy, ensuring impartial humanitarian assistance becomes increasingly essential. Balancing needs, while advocating for impactful ODA that supports peace based on social justice, requires a thoughtful approach that encourages holistic support. #
