|
Summary of Busan Outcome Statement As Cambodia reflects on the Busan High-level Forum and looks forward to applying the commitments made there to our own national context and development priorities, there are perhaps 5 principal points to note that are based directly on the Busan Outcome Statement: 1. The Busan document emphasises the need to look beyond aid in order to identify a more holistic and effective strategy for promoting national development. Identifying Government's own revenues, the role of state and non-state actors, regional and global integration as the drivers of sustainable and inclusive growth (para 28) locates the Busan agreement in a broader development context that focuses on results. Aid is seen as a means to catalyse and optimize the contributions of a wider range of actors, actions and resources (para 9, 28). 2. A broader global and country partnership is proposed as a means to coordinate diverse actors around a set of common principles. Busan therefore built on progress in Accra to confirm the important roles of all actors, noting explicitly the contributions to be made by aid-providing partners from the South (para 30/31), the private sector (para 32) and civil society (para 22). A common set of principles (para 8) is elaborated (para 11) to guide this partnership focusing on: ownership; results; inclusive partnerships; and transparency and mutual accountability. Acknowledging the diverse experience, resources, interests and competencies of those engaged in the development process – and accommodating this diversity and difference – was central to the negotiation of the Busan document. It is referenced in particular in para 2 (South-South providers apply agreed principles and actions on a voluntary basis) as well as in paras 7, 14, 16. 3. It is necessary to recognise and emphasise country context in order to achieve sustainable development results. The document moves beyond global norms and shared principles to emphasise the importance of adapting to country context and national priorities. The basic framework for contextualization is to develop a common results framework (para 18b) and mutual assessments of progress (18d), similar to the JMI and sector monitoring that currently takes place. Country systems (paras 19, 29) are assigned a higher profile than in Accra – they are to be used as the default option – and can be promoted through the application of joint approaches to assessment (para 19b) and risk management (para 18a). 4. There is a commitment to greater political engagement in order to accelerate progress. Slow progress in implementing the Paris/Accra commitments was generally acknowledged (para 6, 15). Recognising the excessively technocratic approach of Paris/Accra, the Global Partnership emphasises its political leadership role (para 3, 13, 16, 36a) while donors and partner countries that endorsed Paris/Accra agreed to "intensify our efforts to implement our respective commitments in full" (para 16). 5. The Global Partnership will mobilise political leadership to complement country-led efforts. The commitment by all those present in Busan to a form a new and inclusive Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, based on common principles, will perhaps be the most enduring legacy of the Busan meeting (para 7, 8, 13, 35, 36). The precise form that this Partnership will take, including the continued use of a global monitoring arrangement (paras 35b and 36c), will be defined by mid-2012 but its political role has been emphasised as well as its links to existing global dialogue structures and processes. ----------------------- The Busan Outcome Statement also highlighted other important themes: gender equality (para 20), transparency (para 23), aid fragmentation (para 25), corruption (para 33) and climate change (para 34). CRDB/CDC will reflect further on all of these issues and develop options for further discussion at our forthcoming TWG Network, which will likely be held in mid-February 2012.
|