Summit Outcome Document – Knowledge Sharing Space.

This page brings together the various versions of the outcome document of the 2022 Effective Development Co-operation Summit, comments received from the stakeholders, as well as an overview of the drafting group members and their meeting schedule.

For any questions related to the Outcome Document, please contact: 


Key Documents

Zero Draft

First Draft

Second Draft with Annexes

Third Draft with Annexes

Additional Documents

Comments by GPEDC's Steering Committee Members on the Annexes 

Outcome Document Drafting Group PPT



Comments (27)

GPEDC Moderator

Thank you to all for your comments and suggestions.

Please note that the first draft of the Summit Outcome Document is now online. You can download it here.



Casey Kelso Kim Bettcher Brett Jones Theres Klühs Diego Lopez Annika Kaipola Tiziana Clerico Katherine Gifford Maria Sundström 

GPEDC Moderator

Comments from International Organization for Migration

  • Regarding Outcome 2 – ‘Who is sitting at the table’ , IOM suggests the following text: Providing suitable spaces and ample opportunities for private sector to engage in multi-stakeholder dialogues within the humanitarian-development nexus whereby they can share about challenges and opportunities in supporting development work by sharing their experiences and good practices.


  • Page 4-9: For the columns on the right-hand side, IOM suggests to separate 'practical implications' and 'commitments' rather than grouping them in one. The former could be phrased as analyses of the current status & key needs/gaps (e.g. "Targeted and coordinated support is needed to statistical capacity at country level...") , whereas the latter could be phrased as concrete action points (Members will mainstream the principles...."). Furthermore, the 'commitments' section should make clearer "who" is committing these actions. For example in #3 the 'commitments' only mention 'give more attention to...' and 'strengthen the role...' without mentioning who will be leading these commitments.
Casey Kelso
Casey Kelso

Text proposal from WINGS, representing the philanthropic constituency

Today, only 3% of the world’s population lives in countries with open civic space, according to the latest CIVICUS Monitor 2022, while more than 70% live in societies with “repressed” or “closed” civic space in the global North and South.

Laws and regulations that interfere with civil society resourcing and operations deepen inequalities created by the pandemic, hamper efforts to deliver on the pledge to leave no-one behind (LNOB) in the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, and undercut the response to the climate crisis. Such a trend also broadly undermines our common humanity and – in philanthropic terms – undercuts traditions, values and cultures of giving found in every society.

WINGS proposes the confirmation of foundational rights and liberties to open civic spaces through the consensus-endorsed global joint commitment at the 3rd High-Level Meeting (HLM) of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, and sees that declaration as contributing to effective development cooperation by affirming inclusive partnerships between actors, and promoting better impact results and mutual accountability.

WINGS on behalf of the philanthropic community proposes an additional section in the Outcome Document entitled "The context matters":

"The context matters

At a time when trust has eroded, and inequalities growing, and climate disasters unfolding with the most vulnerable suffering more than ever, multistakeholder partnerships at the country level need to unite all actors in development. Following the pandemic, the effectiveness of local actors in development has been demonstrated, with a growing global recognition that unhindered civic society can help accelerate development effectiveness. The G7 stressed in 2021 and 2022 the protection of civic space and diverse, independent and pluralistic civil societies to create an enabling environment for inclusive partnerships that uphold transparency and mutually accountability within the context of country ownership and a focus on results. In addition, in a landmark multi-governmental statement, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society​​ in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance calls for respecting, protecting, and promoting civic space including the ability to develop local financial resource streams.

We support creating an enabling environment for all development actors at country level, committing to remove unintended restrictions on political and civil rights, and associational rights like unhindered registration and resourcing.”


The imperative to “build back better” and “Leave No One Behind” requires nothing less than a fundamental rethink about the conducive context for multistakeholder sustainable development cooperation at country level, ensuring that local community organisations and their leaders are enabled to exist as development actors, determine their development needs, give and receive resources for operation, and freely carry out programmatic activities.

Practical implications & commitments:

As constituency representatives that gather in Geneva at the December Summit under the aegis of effective development cooperation, it is important to make a common commitment to build a trusting relationship between broad civil society (i.e. including philanthropy) and governments at the country level, by reaffirming the importance of an enabling environment. Such a declaration can form a good foundation for dialogue that moblises all stakeholders and creates sustainable structure to deliver development.


GPEDC Moderator

Comments from UNESCO:


  • The Document covers important points and we agree that it should be short and action-oriented. We feel that it could emphasize a bit more the value and importance of multilateralism to address the many crises the world is facing today.
  • We also feel that it should be more explicit on “absorbing shocks” and in particular call for predictability of ODA in the current context, and especially given the “bumps” we have all faced this year.
  • We would also be keen to see an acknowledgment to the differentiated challenges and opportunities faced by various types of organizations (in particular we are interested in addressing specific issues facing specialized agencies).
Kim Bettcher
Kim Bettcher

The specific references to the private sector are limited to finance or investments in the context of capacity. it would be better to recognize the range of contributions from the private sector and its roles as a stakeholder and engine of growth. This limitation can probably be addressed by incorporating additional language from the Kampala Principles document.

Brett Jones
Brett Jones

Comments from the United States:

  • We thank the GPEDC for circulating the zero draft Outcome document for the 2022 Summit.
  • The U.S. has some concerns regarding the structure of the zero draft and eventual outcome document.  We note that all GPEDC outcome documents have been voluntary and non-binding.  We also understand the attraction of a brief, impactful political statement that is fully negotiated.  However, from a U.S. legal perspective the "practical implications and commitments" should be negotiated and the annexes should not be incorporated by reference without qualification that they do not entail or constitute commitments. We can propose two options to address our concern (1) adding qualifying language to the annexes to make it clear that they are not commitments, or (2) moving (and likely streamlining) the information now contemplated as going into the annexes to the main document.  It is important that the parties have a clear meeting of the minds as to what constitutes a commitment among the GPEDC members expected to endorse the outcome.  
  • We understand that the purpose of a political statement is to draw attention to issues in development cooperation, especially those that are amenable to being addressed through implementation of the effectiveness principles.  However, the GPEDC and its predecessor have previously drawn their statements and commitments from the evidence of what works.  We question how products of the work streams in the latest work plan are represented, and where the evidence is for some of the statements made in the rationales.
  • We are concerned by the elevation of the environment pillar over the social and economic pillars in the 2030 Agenda, by sweeping generalizations of practices around all global public goods and the exclusivity of the space where strategic development cooperation decisions are taken has increased at a time in which the number of providers and types of cooperation have, in fact, grown substantially.  The GPEDC outcomes have heretofore accommodated different strategies and approaches by all partners.  We are concerned that many of the “practical implications and commitments” should continue to reflect the range of stakeholders and variation within each constituency and focus mainly on certain providers.  
  • At the same time, we would like to hear more as to how the increased attention addressing global public goods is compatible with the statement in paragraph 4 that “we will focus the attention and efforts of our cooperation on leaving no one behind; ”how those efforts will result in sustainable changed if the duty-bearers lack commitment.  We believe that there is substantial scope to be more explicit about the role of all stakeholders in reaching the furthest behind, especially through locally-led development.; and how the focus on GPGs is compatible with the rededication to a country-level focus.
  • The roadmap is unclear as to whether all potential endorsers of the outcome document will take part in the negotiation of the full document.  We would appreciate a better understanding of this aspect.  The steps and time frame seem otherwise reasonable.
  • We have no objections to a small drafting group.  However, it will be important to be clear whether those in the group hold the pen (i.e. can craft compromises among differing positions or comments) and what its relationship is to the co-chairs, particularly as it relates to resolving key issues of dissent.
GPEDC Moderator

Comments from Japan


We would like to submit Japan’s comments on the draft of the outcome document as attached herewith.


Regarding our comments, we believe the following three points are particularly important and should be included in our outcome document.

As you are aware, these points were also raised and discussed in other development fora, such as recent G20 development ministerial meetings, and received supports by other members. 


- #1 In regard to the effectiveness principle of transparency and mutual accountability, Members will adhere more closely to international rules and standards in development cooperation, including development finance, such as debt sustainability and its transparency.

- #1 The quality of development cooperation is also important for inclusive, sustainable and resilient economic growth. In this regard, Members commit to implement the G20 Principles for Quality Infrastructure Investment, which includes openness, transparency, economic efficiency in view of life-cycle cost, and debt sustainability as its elements. 

- #5 Member will utilize Total Official Support for Sustainable Development (TOSSD)


We will appreciate your support to reflect these comments to the document.

Diego Lopez
Diego Lopez

Comments from trade unions:

Please find below and attached the comments from trade unions to specific sections of the zero draft of the Outcome Document

The “how” of development cooperation matters

Trade unions welcome the focus of this section which clearly reflects the importance of effective development cooperation in responding to current challenges and achieving the SDGs. We however feel that greater attention should be put on the crucial role of effective development cooperation in the promotion of decent and climate-friendly jobs and the fight against climate change. In order to better respond to the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement, the outcome document should put forward specific commitments on promoting investments in decent and climate-friendly jobs and supporting a Just Transition in the fight against climate change. A Just Transition consists of labour market policies and jobs plans negotiated with the social partners (workers’ and employers’ organisations) and affected communities, backed up with vocational training and reskilling and supported through social protection. The Just Transition imperative clearly reflects the four development effectiveness principles, it is an inclusive approach to fight against climate change and ensure that no one is left behind in these processes.

In this sense we would suggest adding the following text to this section:

“The GPEDC will put forward concrete efforts towards ensuring effective development cooperation contributes to the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement, by promoting investments in decent and climate-friendly jobs and promoting  a Just Transition to ensure that no one is left behind in the fight against climate change, in line with the development effectiveness principles.”

Who is sitting at the table matters

Promoting an enabling environment for civil society and trade unions is key for effective action dialogues. For trade unions this translates in the respect for the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining as well as the right to organise. These are key foundations for social dialogue processes that ensure inclusiveness, build trust, guarantee ownership and promote transparency and accountability.

We would therefore suggest that this section refers to the importance of an enabling environment as a key pillar for effective action dialogues by adding the following text:

“Ensuring an enabling environment for civil society and trade unions will be the first step for an inclusive engagement of stakeholders that will contribute to effective action dialogues. The GPEDC commits to improving the enabling environment for CSOs and trade unions, through the promotion of social dialogue and the rights to freedom of association, and collective bargaining.”

Everyone matters

Trade unions strongly support the inclusion of references to the need to improve social protection systems and to its importance in building resilience to shocks and ensuring that no one is left behind. Concrete commitments on strengthening social protection should be put forward in this section, making the link to the UN Secretary General’s initiative for a Global Accelerator on Jobs and Social Protection for Just Transitions, and highlighting the importance of a Global Social Protection Fund that could put forward a coordinated approach, involving different GPEDC stakeholders (development partners, partner countries, multilateral organisations, trade unions, the private sector and CSOs), to strengthen social protection in Least Developed Countries. A Global Social Protection Fund could, through financial and technical support, put forward coordinated responses to fight poverty and inequalities in line with the development effectiveness principles and should therefore specifically be referenced in this section.

In this sense we would suggest the following addition to the text:

“We will work in coordination to strengthen social protection in partner countries in line with the UN Secretary General’s initiative for a Global Accelerator on Jobs and Social Protection for Just Transitions. A Global Social Protection Fund could lead to coordinated responses between GPEDC stakeholders to consolidate social protection in countries most in need.”


Theres Klühs
Theres Klühs

Comments from Germany:

We would like to thank the Co-Chairs and the JST for sharing the Draft Outcome Document. We generally agree to the points mentioned in the document.

To read our few comments in detail, please find attached the commented draft outcome document.

We would like to emphasize the concerns we have with the very last sentence made: "We commit to undertake at least one monitoring before the next High Level meeting". We recommend to re-phrase or delete this sentence.

Why? As we understand the proposed monitoring reform, it will not be possible for development partners (DPs) to initiate a monitoring. Rather, partner countries will approach DPs and then DPs will engage in the monitoring.

From our point of view, it is hence not possible to commit to undertaking a monitoring as DPs cannot initiate these processes in the first place. They can, however, encourage partner countries to enter the monitoring process.

Tiziana Clerico
Tiziana Clerico

Thanks for sharing the zero draft. Below are some comments UNHCR would like to highlight

  • Who is sitting at the table matters (page 3) UNHCR suggests including forcibly displaced and affected communities as key relevant actors, to ensure a truly open and inclusive action dialogue at country level. Humanitarian and peace actors should also be part of the dialogue aimed at building a common understanding and address peoples’ risks, priorities and vulnerabilities through closer humanitarian, development and peacebuilding cooperation.


  • In-country capacity matters (rationale, page 3) UNHCR suggests the inclusion of a “whole of government” approach, in addition to the already mentioned “whole of society” one to ensure a collective, complementary and integrated governmental response at all levels.


  • Everyone matters (practical implications and commitments page 4) UNHCR suggests the inclusion of a practical implication and commitment towards Age and Gender disaggregated data so to have an action that mirrors the rationale highlighting the insufficiently disaggregated data availability. The Busan commitment towards gender equality and women empowerment (para 20 a); b); c), page 5) should be the reference for the formulation of this commitment and referred to in the #4 as well as in the rationale.
  • Furthermore, we would like to suggest the inclusion of specific data on forcibly displaced, when relevant and available.  UNHCR’s engagement and support to national statistical authorities and other national authorities working in the area of statistics on people forced to flee and their host communities will be coordinated with HCT/UNCT to the extent possible.
Katherine Gifford
Katherine Gifford

On behalf of UN Women, please find below recommended language for a key message, and associated rationale/commitments, on gender equality and effective development cooperation. 

UN Women Submission on Zero Draft of GPEDC Summit Outcome, 30 September 2022

Gender equality matters

Key Message

Commitments to gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls are clearly defined in national and international laws and the internationally agreed Sustainable Development Goals. Progress towards gender equality is a prerequisite for inclusive development, democratic governance, social and economic justice, and peace for all. For development co-operation to be most effective, it must catalyze political commitment and action to address persistent gender gaps and ensure policies and programmes respond to the needs of women. We must rapidly accelerate efforts to achieve gender equality through development co-operation that is grounded in country priorities and aligned with national gender equality policy objectives. This requires trust-based partnerships, strong and transparent country systems, and harnessing all sources of financing for the achievement of gender equality.    


Identifying the causes and consequences of gender inequality is critical for designing effective and appropriate policy measures, targeting resources where they are needed most, and advancing sustainable and inclusive development. Recalling the Busan Partnership Agreement, for development co-operation to support the achievement of gender equality, all stakeholders should i) accelerate and deepen efforts to collect and make full use of data disaggregated by sex to inform policy decisions and guide investments; ii) integrate targets for gender equality and women’s empowerment into accountability mechanisms, in line with national and regional commitments; and iii) address gender equality and women’s empowerment in all development co-operation especially in humanitarian and peace building efforts.

Practical implications & commitments

  • Members will support and enhance capacities in the collection, analysis and use of data disaggregated by sex to inform policy decisions and budget allocations
  • Members will design and execute inclusive partnerships and strong systems of accountability, ensuring the active engagement of women and women’s organisations
  • Members will work to ensure that Official Development Assistance is directed to support gender-responsive policies in sectors and sub-sectors where gender gaps are most significant
  • Members will work to ensure that all development co-operation is targeted to deliver on gender equality commitments, including by tracking and making public their resource allocations for gender equality and reporting progress via global monitoring of SDG Indicator 5.c.1 [included in the GPEDC monitoring framework]
  • Members will strengthen country systems to deliver on national gender equality commitments, including by introducing and expanding implementation of gender responsive budgeting
  • Please add your commitments here


Maria Sundström
Maria Sundström

On belhalf of Sweden, please find comments on the zero draft below. 

As a general comment we think that the formulations of the document’s vision should be made stronger to mobilise the political support needed. The fact that we are at the mid-point of the 2030 Agenda while the situation for many of the poorest people in the world has worsened in the last years is an important argument for increased focus on effectiveness in development cooperation that should be made more clearly. As we are facing difficult times caused by several interlinked crises, the pressure on ODA is likely to continue to increase. The importance of results benefitting those furthest behind, in line with the LNOB principle, should be underlined and should be at the centre of the commitment of working better together. To strengthen this message, we would suggest moving message #4 on “everyone matters” higher up in the document (closer to the “how”) as well as making this link in the preamble. Expectations of catalytic use of ODA in line with the Addis Ababa Action Agenda should not be described as a burden in the preamble but rather as a positive opportunity to gather around and make use of in the most effective way possible.

Message #1 on the “how” of development cooperation should have a stronger focus on poverty reduction in partner countries and should more clearly reflect the broader understanding of inclusive national ownership that includes all development actors. While we agree with the ambition of a short and action-oriented document, the merging of ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnerships and transparency and mutual accountability to “the principles” risks making the key message about the “how” too vague. To avoid vagueness and uneven attention to the four principles, we would suggest underlining their equal importance and interdependence. Even more clarity could be achieved by specifying where progress has been made in relation to the principles, as well as where more action is needed.

In the rationale of message #2, we suggest not referring to a decline in development actors’ willingness to invest in coordination and dialogue due to listed reasons, as this can be questioned. Rather we would suggest focusing on “constraints” which include the listed reasons.

Message #3 on in-country capacity should not state that externally supported capacity building in partner countries is the only way forward. The starting point for this message should be to make use of existing capacity and to work to strengthen that capacity when needed.

In message #4 on everyone matters we suggest referring to social protection as a human right. We would like to see the following added: “Current social protection systems and social safety nets are inadequate to build resilience to shocks and ensure the right to social security as enshrined in the UN declaration of human rights.”

Besides the principles we are missing language on value-driven development cooperation in line with the 2030 Agenda, such as on gender equality, human rights, and democracy. Already agreed language can be used. Reference should be made to both the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, not only the SDGs.

Given the important role of the multilateral system for delivering on the 2030 Agenda, addressing crises, and working better together to deliver results at country level we would like to see the multilateral perspective reflected more clearly in the text. This could be done under message #6 about a GPEDC that matters. We welcome the reference made to the UNDS’s role at country level under message #3 on in-country capacity. Reference to the UN system should also be made under message #2 on who is sitting at the table matters and message #6 on data.

Katherine Gifford
Katherine Gifford

On behalf of UN Women, we are providing recommended revisions to Draft 1 of the Outcome Document, with corresponding justifications for these (in attachment). 

In summary, we recommend a revision to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Preamble and a revision to the paragraph on gender equality under the section "Everyone Matters". 

We appreciate consideration of these recommendations.

Casey Kelso
Casey Kelso

As requested in the Steering Committee meeting of 18 October, the philanthropy constituency has reflected upon the newest draft shared at 22:00 CET Monday 17 October.

We were pleased to see that the newest draft does incorporate two sentences regarding the importance of an enabling environment: 

“We will support and engage in such multi-stakeholder dialogues to build broad ownership of development priorities and plans, foster cooperation, synergies and coherence, including among humanitarian, development and peace initiatives, build trust, safeguard stakeholders’ enabling environment, uphold all fundamental rights and freedoms and enhance mutual learning and behavior change.”


“...We commit to improving the enabling environment for CSOs and Trade Unions in the face of on-going, widespread restrictions, through the promotion of social dialogue and the rights to freedom of association, and collective bargaining. [Add: CPDE]”

Nonetheless, our constituents in philanthropy -- from the experiences at the national level among community foundations and other local philanthropic entities -- would feel more comfortable if the Outcome Document elevates the profile of the enabling environment issue by putting these two sentences and a few additional mentions together into a separate section, rather than scattered throughout the document in various places. Brevity of the Outcome Document should not be prioritised at the expense of clarity, comprehensiveness, and consensus affirmation about the indispensable preconditions for national dialogue, such as an enabling environment to strengthen trust at country level among all stakeholders.

Not all new regulations on civil society are unwelcome, even by civil society actors. Effective regulation or self-regulation can incentivise transparency and mutual accountability. However, many efforts to regulate civic space often reflect selective application of rules and restrictions that can hinder the space for effective collaboration. 

We ask the drafting committee to think a second time about including all references to an enabling environment under a short section on this issue. This would assist all stakeholders by providing constructive and positive language that reaffirms the essential nature of an enabling environment, and indicates what could be changed in the legal framework regarding civic space to make them authentic and productive.

As we observed at the Steering Committee meeting, highlighting the need for an enabling environment issue is not a new innovation at the GPEDC: The Siem Reap CSO Consensus in 2011 had a clear call for an enabling environment in the face of “CSO vulnerability”. The CPDE Working Group on CSO Enabling Environment published in 2013 a “synthesis of evidence of progress since Busan”. That study's case studies make an impressive call to improve the legal and regulatory environment to solve issues in foreign financing for CSOs, among several issues. And a later study, “Silencing Voices, Closing Space”, underlined that the commitment in Busan to improve the enabling environment for CSOs was not being met.

Since those earlier GPEDC calls to action, the current situation has become worse, with current expert data such as the 2022 CIVICUS State of Civil Society Report and the United Nations report on access to resources (A/HRC/50/23) by the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Clément Voule, indicating that independent civil society has become even more restricted than ever during the last three years of the Covid-19 pandemic.

We share a vision of a concrete, short and political document with practical, final commitments. We have taken into account the stated wish of the co-chairs to stay with the existing structure of the statement. We understand the valid desire for the final resolution resulting from the Summit to be short and distinct from other global organisations.

In reply to those concerns, however, we reiterate together with other non-executive stakeholders in the GPEDC that this Outcome Document will set the basic parameters for the wider effectiveness agenda, the future of the global platform of the GPEDC, and the practical future engagement by civil society including philanthropy and other actors in the coming years. Therefore, it should underscore the commitment to an enabling environment for local civil society organisations, trade unions, philanthropy and private enterprise as a fundamental prerequisite for inclusion in dialogue and partnership in action.

-- Submitted by WINGS, as a Steering Committee member representing the philanthropic constituency, 

Annika Kaipola
Annika Kaipola

Here below a few comments from Finland regarding the draft 2:

Preamble, para 1: "As the world is facing multiple crises with devastating consequences on people, prosperity, peace and planet, it is urgent that we take collective action to address and resolve competing priorities"  > Propose to change: “… to address and resolve dire needs. 

Preamble, para 4: "Ten years ago the establishment of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC) significantly changed the architecture of development co-operation – institutionalizing a platform to promote the implementation and monitoring of the principles of effective development co-operation, negotiated at the Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan in 2011. The Principles were upheld at the subsequent High Level Meetings (Mexico City, Nairobi) and the Senior Level Meeting (in New York). The GPEDC is a unique global multi-stakeholder platform to maximize the effectiveness of all forms of development co-operation." > Propose to add here some examples of key results that have been achieved. 

Preamble, para 5: "Currently, the global architecture of development cooperation is undergoing disruptive changes" > Propose to remove ”disruptive”. Could be interpreted as the private sector involvement being one of the disruptive changes, which is not the case. 

Key messages #1, para 3: "We will work in coordination to strengthen social protection in partner countries in line with the UN Secretary General’s initiative for a Global Accelerator on Jobs and Social Protection for Just Transitions. A Global Social Protection Fund could lead to coordinated responses between GPEDC stakeholders to consolidate social protection in countries most in need." > Propose to remove or redraft as this is very detailed and could be interpreted as a commitment. 

Key messages #1: The rights of people with disability and the need to deliver disability inclusive strategies and policies should be noted and included in this section.

Key messages #2, para 5: "We commit to localising humanitarian, development and peace building cooperation". > Should be rephrased, e.g. "We commit to advancing localization in.... "

Key messages #3, para 5: For development cooperation to address persistent gender gaps, it needs to be fully responsive to the rights, needs and priorities of all women and girls. This requires inclusive, multi-stakeholder partnerships and strong systems of mutual accountability, designed with the active leadership and engagement of women and women’s organizations. > Here important to address the rights of women and girls but also intersectionality and transformative approach that aims to change gendered structures and address the root causes of inequalities.


David Fisher
David Fisher

Dear colleagues,  With thanks for the opportunity, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies offers the following suggestions:

  • In the first paragraph under "Key Message 1", to the list of major threats, we suggest to add "increasing risks to life and safety faced by many persons along migratory routes".
    • In the (excellent) final paragraph of this section on commitments, we suggest to add "climate" to the sectors included in the nexus approach, as well as reference to the "Principles for Locally Led Adaptation" along with the existing reference to the Grand Bargain.
  • In the first paragraph under "Key Message 3", we would appreciate mention of "National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies" among stakeholders to engage in development planning.  Their unique legal status as auxiliaries to the authorities means that "civil society" does not exactly describe them.  
    • In the second paragraph under this Key Message, we would again suggest mention of "climate" within the nexus approach.
Vincent Rousseau
Vincent Rousseau

Dear colleagues,

Comments from Canada and the CANZUS Constituency on the Outcome document will come around Wednesday COB. Apologies for the delay.  

Maria Sundström
Maria Sundström

Comments from Sweden

Thank you for the inclusive process so far, and for a well written draft. Please find below some general comments from Sweden. More detailed comments and suggested changes in the text are in the attached document.

The document, we believe, would benefit from being further developed to have more refined messages and commitments on the “how” of effective development cooperation under each key message. This contributes to the added value of the GPEDC and the effectiveness agenda particularly in today’s context.

In the draft, we find a strong emphasis on language concerning the “what” of development cooperation. We would like to see this toned down and preferably discussed in other multilateral fora than the GPEDC. Where “what” topics are to be included, this should be done by referencing already existing global agreements or commitments. For this reason, we also suggest removing the reference to a global fund for social protection.

To take the agenda forward and improve clarity of the document, the document would benefit from being more explicit about current challenges for effective development cooperation, for example in the preamble. The key messages could more clearly be highlighted as important ways forward where collective action is needed to overcome current challenges and make all kinds of development cooperation more impactful.

While Sweden very much agrees with the overall ambition to make sure aid resources reach local communities and promotes local ownership of their own development process, Sweden does not support a commitment to set quantitative targets for development partners' support to local actors at this point. Further and substantial work on the measurement of this support, including on the definition and follow up, is required before setting a quantitative target.

Sweden strongly recommends that the document communicates the links between the effectiveness agenda and the broader FfD agenda highlighting that the principles for effective development cooperation apply to all types of actors and financing. When referring to the increasing intersections between development cooperation and other parts of the FfD agenda, it should not be limited to only to the area of private business and investments, but also address other equally intersecting areas of that agenda where investment in capacities and improved policies is important, like Aid for Trade and support for Domestic Resource Mobilisation.

Sweden recommends that language underlining that national ownership should be democratic and inclusive is strengthened and that the beneficiaries of development cooperation should be at the centre, in line with previously agreed language. Sweden supports UNW’s proposed language on gender equality and has made suggestions on how it could be further strengthened.

GPEDC Moderator

On behalf of Austria:

Austria fully supports the reform of the Global Partnership Monitoring Framework. The simplification of procedures and frameworks, the adaptation of the system to

today ́s realities are essential for the future of development cooperation. We agree that the current system can be improved to provide a fair reflection of development cooperation and that it could

better focus on aspects of effectiveness that lead to a better development impact and leaving no one behind. There will be a certain challenge – on the one hand, to simplify the framework, and on the

other hand, to complement it, specify and to make sure that activities and actions of other constituencies, multilateral donorship, civil society activities, are fully reflected in the framework.


Drafting Suggestions:

#1 Everyone Matters:

Progress towards gender equality, the empowerment of women and girls and the full realisation of their human rights (NEU: and self-determination), is a

prerequisite for inclusive development, democratic governance, social and economic justice, and peace for all.


#5: Data Matters:

“We will support the capacity of the national statistical systems, including their digitalization efforts, and their ability to improve data quality

and disaggregation (including gender, age, disability, forced displacement, geography and income/wealth, etc). NEU: We will also support appropriate education and training measures for the collection and processing of information for statistics in the field of development cooperation.

Vincent Rousseau
Vincent Rousseau

Dear colleagues, 

With many thanks for sharing the revised outcome document for the High-Level Meeting and apologies for the delay, please find attached the consolidated CANZUS proposed corrections.  

In addition to the attached document, the CANZUS constituency had the following high-level comments:

  • The CANZUS constituency continues to support an outcome document that it concise and focused on the GPEDC’s core role in promoting the implementation and monitoring of development effectiveness. Text that reduces or blurs this focus should be considered for being cut from the draft document.
  • We have questions with regards to expectations of endorsement of this document given the GPEDC’s amorphous membership. Without a formal list of members of the GPEDC, a list of countries and organisations who accept the effectiveness principles and strive to implement them, the endorsement of such a document remains vague by definition and its consensual nature can easily be questioned.
  • We have concerns about language in the document related to ongoing conflicts/crises, specifically the commitment to resolve these conflicts/crises. This is not an area we can commit to and moreover doesn’t seem appropriate in a document about the “how” of development.”
  • As this is meant to be a public document, we recommend using accessible language whenever possible.
  • Australia note that they would prefer to replacing ‘vulnerable people’ with wording such as ‘people who may be vulnerable’ as they don’t support characterising people as inherently ‘vulnerable’, although it is important to recognise that events and circumstances, including situations of marginalisation, can make them vulnerable.
  • We have concerns regarding the structure of the draft and eventual outcome document, including on the inclusion of annexes. We note that all GPEDC outcome documents have been voluntary and non-binding. We also understand the attraction of a brief, impactful political statement that is fully negotiated. However, from a U.S. legal perspective the "practical implications and commitments" should be negotiated and the annexes should not be incorporated by reference without qualification that they do not entail or constitute commitments. They should be attached to the next draft so as to negotiate the full document or be published independently of the outcome document as working documents of the GPEDC.
  • We look forward receiving a new version of this outcome document.
Jehane Sedky
Jehane Sedky

Thank you so much for the opportunity to comment on the Outcome Document.  The Science of Implementation Initiative has a few suggested edits to the November 2 draft for your consideration:  

  1. Under Preamble, in paragraph 3: Suggested addition as the last sentence of the paragraph: 

In addition, developed countries would realize the agreements set out in Paris and Busan to work toward the full use of country systems and until that is possible, developed countries would work with partner governments to determine what would be required to move towards full use.     

  1. Under Preable, in paragraph 5, sentence 2 we suggest adding Busan, 2011” at the end of the sentence as it reflects a key aid effectiveness agreement signed on to by 211 partner countries, bilaterals and multilaterals. 
  2. Under Development Co-operation Matters, paragraph 2, we would recommend highlighting the core principle of aid effectiveness - strengthening the public sector - within the text.  Suggested language below: 

With the date for achieving the 2030 Development Goals fast approaching, we will put forward concrete efforts towards ensuring effective development co-operation that contributes to the realization of the 2030 Agenda commitments and the Paris Agreement, including by promoting investments in high-quality, resilient infrastructure and adaptation, the reduction of inequalities, strengthened public sector institutions, and in decent and sustainable, green jobs.

  1. Under Development Co-operation matters, paragraph 7, last sentence, we recommend including reference to accompanying national and municipal leaders as well as civil society leaders.  See our suggested language below: 

When we shift towards locally led development, the results are more likely to be sustained by local entities and maximize ownership, results, inclusivity, transparency, and accountability at the local level. Development co-operation providers commit to maximizing their efforts to accompany national and municipal government leaders as well strengthen the leadership of civil society actors in Partner Countries, consistently with global commitments including the three pillars of the OECD DAC Recommendations on enabling civil society in development co-operation and humanitarian assistance. 

  1. Under In-Country Capacity matters, paragraph 2,  we suggest making reference to the targets agreed upon in Paris and reaffirmed in Busan.  See our suggested language below: 

We will build on existing in-country capacities and continue to invest in institutions and stakeholders, including duty bearers and rights holders. We will use country systems as the default approach, align with country priorities and localize development co-operation to enhance the implementation of national sustainable development plans.  Developed countries should use the Paris Declaration targets that were agreed to in 2005.

GPEDC Moderator

On behalf of Casey Kelso 


Dear Co-Chairs, 

Thank you so much for the opportunity to comment on the second draft of the Outcome Document, and for an inclusive process in drafting this important document.  WINGS on behalf of our respective constituency of philanthropy is heartened to see that the language on enabling environment has been greatly strengthened.

We have only one edit from our side, which is to include philanthropy as a constituency that also strives to improve the enabling environment for effective development cooperation, along with civil society and trade unions. We would add our sector into the third paragraph of the section on "Who is sitting at the table matters":

"The space for the participation of non-executive stakeholders has further suffered from growing challenges. We commit to reversing the trend negatively impacting civic space and to improving the enabling environment for CSOs, PHILANTHROPY and Trade Unions as development actors in their own right, in the face of ongoing, widespread restrictions, through the promotion of meaningful participation in social dialogue as well as of the rights to freedom of assembly and association, and collective bargaining."

We see an enabling environment and open civic space as a fundamental prerequisite for productive national-level dialogue, which we see as valuable in shaping reforms in development cooperation consistent with the principles.

Philanthropy as a stakeholder at GPEDC commits itself to proactively supporting the initiatives described in the annexes i.e. the new monitoring process and framework and country-level action dialogues. We will welcome the commitment of other stakeholders at the Summit to specific follow-up actions on the annexes coming afterwards, when the work on the ground truly begins.

With kind regards, on behalf of Benjamin Bellegy, the Executive Director of WINGS,
Casey Kelso, Chief Advocacy Officer

Please log in or sign up to comment.