New figures show that rich country spending on international aid has dropped for the second year in a row.  despite promises made by rich countries nearly 40 years ago to give 0.7% of their Gross National Income as aid. This shows that new political leadership is required urgently if they are ever to be met.

The OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) report released in Japan today, notes a 8.4% drop in real overseas development aid (ODA) in 2007.  Most donors are not on track to meet their stated commitments to scale up aid and will need to make unprecedented increases to meet the target of a $50 billion increase annually by 2010.  The 22 DAC member countries, the world’s major donors, provided USD 103.7 billion in aid in 2007.  Taking into account this is the end of a period of exceptionally high debt relief, this represents a drop of Gross National Income to 0.28% in 2007, against the internationally agreed target of 0.7% of GNI.

 “The OECD countries are dragging their feet. They made commitments but are not following through,’ says Kumi Naidoo, Co-chair of GCAP. “ The unwillingness of governments - France, Japan and Italy in particular - to honour promises on debt relief and aid, is increasing poverty, deepening inequality and adding to global insecurity. It’s outrageous that you can find the money for military spending but can’t find it for ODA,” he added.

GCAP campaigners in developing countries have seen first-hand how these shortfalls on commitments and poor aid quality directly impacts people’s lives.  Where debt cancellation has taken effect since the Gleneagles commitments of 2005, it has led to better healthcare, better education, treatment for HIV/Aids and some progress towards reaching the Millennium Development Goals.

In 2008, GCAP therefore calls on current G8 President, Japan, to show leadership at its July Summit by putting ODA high on their agenda and reversing what they call an 'appalling trend'.   GCAP will also be looking for action at the September Aid Effectiveness Summit in Accra, Ghana which represents a crucial opportunity to improve the quality of aid .

“In Accra, governments will be set a mandatory timetable for aid delivery and effectiveness.  This, combined with the G8 in Japan is a great opportunity for a change in direction and one we will not miss. We expect a more serious approach from leaders to ending poverty, the impact of failure is not worth contemplating,” said Christophe Zoungrana, GCAP Africa Coordinator.

The , with coalitions in over 100 rich and poor countries, simultaneously campaigns for domestic accountability in the developing world.

America's foreign aid programs are controversial. Polls indicate most Americans want the United States to be a generous donor of foreign aid. At the same time, these Americans greatly overestimate how much help we send overseas.
Others are concerned that our foreign aid falls far short of the global commitments made in the Millennium Development Goals. And yet others say Western foreign assistance is focused more on "giving a man a fish" than on "teaching a man to fish."

To deal, in part, with this complexity, Congress moved in 2004 to create a panel which would recommend small and large changes to the structure of U.S. And their report is now available.

The international community is very preoccupied with the impact, accountability and effectiveness of aid. Towards the end of 2008, the Accra High Level Forum will take place and the United Nations plan to hold their Second Global Conference on Financing for Development (FfD) in Doha. This conference intends to take stock of the implementation of the decisions taken at the first FfD conference in Monterrey in 2002 and the Summits of the following years (World Summit 2005, G8 Summit in Gleneagles, etc.). In addition, the conference will discuss what new financing initiatives are necessary to achieve the International Development Goals, particularly the MDGs.  

As a preparatory step for the Doha Conference, the United Nations General Assembly organised its third High-level Dialogue on Financing for Development on the overall theme The Monterrey Consensus: status of implementation and tasks ahead on 23-24 October 2007, at the UN Headquarters in New York. That very same week, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands convened an Experts Meeting in The Hague entitled Visions and Experiences of Southern Civil Society: Contributions to Improving the Aid Architecture, and I had the privilege to be invited to this meeting.  
The participants at the meeting in The Hague recognised the many problems associated with aid: that it is too little to solve the problems at hand; not well spread across sectors and regions, and not properly coordinated among the donors themselves, leading to a plethora of disconnected projects. Four questions tabled at the Experts meeting reveal the main preoccupations of the CSO community:  
1.   What has happened to the recommendation that donor countries allocate at least 0.7% of their Gross National Income (GNI) to Official Development Assistance (ODA)? ODA flows reached a record US$ 106.5 billion in 2005, equivalent to 0.33% of the GNI of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Projections based on aid commitments by DAC member countries indicate that the level of ODA by the year 2010 will be at US$ 130 billion, representing 0.35% of the GNI of DAC member countries. The propensity to include aspects such as remittances as part of the development aid was highlighted as dangerous and unacceptable and not to be used as an excuse for donor countries’ non-compliane with their historical commitments.
2.   What progress has been made on the principles of the Paris Declaration? The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, agreed in March 2005, establishes global commitments for donor and recipient countries to support more effective aid in the context of a significant scaling up of aid. However, one of the most important principles of the Declaration, namely the “local country ownership” seems not to be advancing and needs to be reframed as “democratic ownership”, so democratic participation of citizens is ensured and accountability of governments and donors is given priority.  As the 2006 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration recommended, development strategies need to be “determined by each country’s priorities, pace and sequencing of reform”. If we go through the Survey, ownership is the indicator that gets the lowest ranking.
 3. What kind of alignment and harmonisation of aid is needed? If genuine ownership is to be achieved, alignment and harmonisation should not include conditionality and imposition of plans, but respect for human rights, for gender equality and for environmental sustainability. That can bring aboard another important principle of the Paris Declaration, mutual accountability: both donors and recipients must be accountable, and that is the only way to make aid effective and accountable. Mutual accountability in the context of highly unequal power between donors and aid dependent countries requires also a commitment to the reform of International Financial Institutions.
4.   How to monitor and evaluate the Paris Declaration and its impact and outcomes? Self-assessment of donors or World Bank data on certain indicators is not enough and the review of donor performance is apparently not happening. A more impartial assessment is seen to be needed. The monitoring and evaluation process cannot imply the introduction of conditionalities. Measurements are needed to evaluate if aid reaches those that need it most and the processes, from allocation to evaluation, must be characterised by transparency and openness.
One consensus was clear among the participants in The Hague: it is necessary to ensure the participation of civil society at all levels and in all segments of the road to the Accra High Level Forum. This participation is essential if the development goals for developing countries are to be realized and there must be clear mechanisms of participation and inclusion of diverse civil society organisations. Civil society organisations can participate most effectively in the determination of more appropriate indicators and measurements of aid effectiveness. 

Warmest regards,

Anabel Cruz

How can a pair of fancy high heels increase aid? Well, simple. An Oxfam shop is taking the international aid agency's commitment to fundraising one step further by launching the first ever, exclusive shopping experience for transvestites, transsexuals and cross-dressers.

Outrageous as it may sound, it does add up. Selling 50 pairs of stilettos would be enough to purchase essential medicines for five villages while the money raised by selling 70 handbags would provide safe water for 1,000 people.

Shop manager Sally Stone and volunteers Michael McDowell and Mark Stanley dreamt up the idea as a way to sell oversized items being donated to the shop. A tongue-in-cheek window display a few months ago, where male mannequins wore frilly nighties with large silk flowers, caused such a positive reaction that Sally is sure the monthly events are going to be popular.

Effectiveness of Official Development Assistance (ODA) has to be increased in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). One important step in this regard would be to limit the appropriation of Aid money for consultants and experts from countries providing the support. Often large chunks of ODA is used to fund consultants and training institutions in the aid-giving countries, for very good reasons though. Utilization of ODA should be left to the discretion of aid-recipient countries, subject to broad parameters.  That is, although there are good reasons for ODA to fund consultants and training institutions, they should not be