The GPEDC stakeholders will meet in Geneva , Switzerland on 12-14 December 2022 for the Effective Development Co-operation Summit. 

Building on past achievements and experiences, and in view of the multiple challenges facing the international community, the Summit will culminate in the adoption of an outcome document to deliver results on global public goods and country priorities, and commit to contribute to the Decade of Action to deliver on the SDGs and to solving the multiple crises the world is facing.

Please 'comment' below to give your feedback to the outcome document! 

Files

Comments (5)

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

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.”

Rationale:

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

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

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.

Please log in or sign up to comment.