Making development cooperation architecture just: Governance principles and pillars

Transcription

1 March 2011 Making development cooperation architecture just: Governance principles and pillars Discussion note from the BetterAid platform: final version REPORT DATE

2 About Betteraid BetterAid is a diverse global platform that brings together Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) that engage in development cooperation. It enables their voluntary pro-active participation in dialogue and policy influencing opportunities on a wide range of issues to deepen aid and development effectiveness. Visit for more information. BetterAid produces a bimonthly newsletter summarizing news and analysis on the Aid Effectiveness agenda. To subscribe to the newsletter, please contact cbirkett@eurodad.org.

3 Making development cooperation architecture just: governance principles and pillars Traditional development cooperation: an unsustainable structure The multiple crises the world is facing food, healthcare, employment, climate, financial and economic leave no doubt that we are dealing with a problem of systemic proportions. These crises have reversed development gains in many developing countries and have seriously undermined the global achievement of the Internationally Agreed Development Goals (IADGs), including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These crises also harshly exemplify that the goals of growth, efficiency and laissez-faire market policies at the heart of the current development paradigm are unsustainable. This model has failed to guarantee a just allocation of resources, an equal distribution of wealth and an equal respect and fulfillment of human rights. It has failed to recognize the centrality of unpaid care work and has not provided for adequate food, livelihoods, gender equality, social security, welfare and well-being for all. Such an outcome is in contradiction to existing international agreements and commitments that date to the 1970s. At the core of this new development cooperation architecture must be a multilateral and multistakeholder body that ensures the representation of all development actors. BetterAid calls for fundamental, conceptual and systemic changes of the international development cooperation and global governance system. This would be based on a new approach that focuses on development effectiveness, social justice and human rights rather than aid effectiveness and economic growth. It must be pursued through a new development cooperation architecture that is inclusive, rights-based and democratic. Moreover, the new framework should respect people, promote sovereignty and ensure coherence between all external policies. At the core of this new development cooperation architecture must be a multilateral and multistakeholder body that ensures the representation of all development actors. Its remit should cover all modalities of development cooperation and not just aid. As stated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, ratified in 1976), international solidarity has a crucial role to play, through sustainable international cooperation based on states responsibility to support the development of peoples of other states so they can realize their rights1 The UN Declaration on the Right to Development also imposes on the international community obligations to promote fair development policies and effective international cooperation towards the realization of the right to development and of all human rights.2 BetterAid maintains that the established systems and institutions of global governance and international cooperation demonstrate a lack of political will to meet past commitments and deal coherently and effectively with the major development challenges confronting the world. This is evident in terms of the mixed progress seen to achieve the IADGs and to implement crucial obligations on aid effectiveness made in the Paris Declaration (2005) and the Accra Agenda for Action (2008). The established aid system also can no longer be discussed in isolation from the broader financial context (such as foreign direct investment, tax evasion, capital flight, stolen assets, climate change funding, etc.) Official Development Assistance (ODA) accounts for just 0.2% of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - despite the commitment made in 1970 by donor countries to assign 0.7% of their gross national income for ODA. If the IADGs are to be achieved, the other 99.8% of a country s economic activities also need to contribute to development effectiveness.3 Development effectiveness requires significant changes in the international global governance structures at all levels, including international aid, trade, financial markets, foreign direct investment and debt. As such, the current development architecture does not fit the purpose of development effectiveness. It is an amalgamation of different institutions created at different times with overlapping mandates and tools, unclear accountability mechanisms, limited participation and lack of legitimacy. For example, serious power imbalances still afflict negotiations around international aid, trade, debt settlement, financing, and investment regimes with developing countries denied the policy space to chart their own development process, generate domestic resources and use those resource to respond to their citizen demands. A major challenge is the internal governance of existing intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), especially the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the World Bank (WB) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The space and voice of developing countries in these bodies needs to be enhanced along with transparency, democracy and consultation in their decision-making processes. 1

4 Key flaws in the current aid architecture: applying a human rights perspective Currently decision-making and standard-setting on development cooperation is falling short on many fronts. It is not made within a truly multilateral, inclusive and participatory organization. Developing and developed countries, as well as civil society development actors, are not equally represented. The current development cooperation architecture lacks binding commitments and is missing a consistent and accountable approach based on human rights, social equality and justice. Moreover, it has key flaws when assessed against the five principles of the Paris Declaration ownership, alignment, harmonization, managing for results and mutual accountability. The flaws are as follows: Ownership of development processes by developing countries Unbalanced and unrepresentative decision making characterizes international fora and national contexts; Many developing economies not only stagnated, but even regressed as a result of subjecting the planning and management of their economies to the conditionalities of SAPs. There has been a fragmentation and proliferation of actors, with narrow, issue-based agendas exerting excessive pressures on developing countries and the development priorities they select; Alignment of non-development policies with development policies Traditional realpolitik concerns at the international level (i.e. trade, security, migration) have undermined development cooperation and human rights interventions; Managing for results There is an excessive focus on unpredictable short-term aid delivery at the expense of longterm interventions, which are focused on sustainable development results; Transparency is lacking, particularly when it comes to data on aid flows and information on the objectives, progress and results of development interventions; Harmonization of policies Determined leadership is lacking at the international level to tackle systemic inconsistencies and vulnerabilities, contributing to slow responses in crisis situations, a proliferation of contradictory approaches, and damaging impacts on people especially the poor and marginalized; Mutual accountability Stakeholders lack accountability to their citizens for the aid commitments they have made, at the national, regional and international levels, undermining the credibility of the international system; Excessive onus is placed on developing countries for the non-delivery on aid effectiveness targets and development results; Additional failings of the model include that: It is largely focused on a neoliberal vision of development and growth that too often ignores the impact of such a vision on human rights, social justice, gender equality and indigenous peoples. The aid system is too limited and disconnected from the broader financial context (FDI, trade flows, etc.); A commitment to learning from experience is missing, which is mainly due to the disinvestment in systematized, independent evaluations whose findings can be used to ensure policy changes in future interventions; There has been a proliferation of new sectoral initiatives at the global level which often repack funds already committed elsewhere (i.e. the G8 pledges on the L Aquila Food Initiative and for maternal and child health) or that make interventions more vertical and less systemic (e.g. funding the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria rather than investing in primary health care). 2

5 Making development cooperation architecture just: governance principles and pillars The evolution of a failed model Many problems and weaknesses of the current model can be dated to a process that largely took root in the 1990s. The development paradigm that has dominated the last two decades is embodied in the Washington Consensus. The consensus is based on a series of policy directives that date to 1990 and which aim to foster economic growth, open and free markets, an unfettered private sector and a diminished role for government and public expenditure, particularly in areas such as education, social assistance and health care. The need for developing countries to integrate into the world economy was also emphasized and imposed through several means, the most controversial of which were the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), funded by the IMF and the World Bank. The SAPs also provided the mould into which foreign aid had to fit. The Washington Consensus reigned until the late 1990s, when evidence became clear that the expected results such as development, sustained growth, poverty reduction and reduced inequality would simply not be achieved. Many developing economies not only stagnated, but even regressed as a result of subjecting the planning and management of their economies to the conditionalities of SAPs. Nevertheless, many of the same practices, policies and overarching ideology continue today, albeit in less visible and accountable forms. The recent convergence of crises proves that the world is facing a systemic crisis and underlines the need and urgency for fundamental change in the current model. Faced with the failure of these policies in developing countries, new strategies were developed by the early 2000s. These included the use of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) by the World Bank, the introduction of new partnerships for development (i.e. the New Partnership for Africa s Development - NEPAD), as well as renewed initiatives to reform the aid system (i.e. placing the aid effectiveness framework within the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). In addition, the WTO launched a round of trade negotiations (2001) the Doha Development Round that intended to do more justice to development and benefit the countries of the South. Unsurprisingly, this round is still stalled at the beginning of These changes largely followed a series of important conferences hosted by the United Nations that focused on key issues such as human rights, environmental sustainability and gender equality. These meetings, which date to the 1990s, resulted in a number of major country commitments and significant international agreements.4 Unfortunately, this century began with a terrible mismatch between the UN commitments previously agreed to by countries and their actual implementation for a country s development.5 The United Nations proposed to revisit these commitments, in the form of a broad agreement on key international development goals. Known as the Millennium Declaration (2000), it led to a focus on what are now known as the MDGs, with the aim of meeting these goals by Within civil society, reactions to the MDGs have been mixed. For some, they represent a reduction of the development goals and agendas agreed in the 1990s. For others, they constitute a policy strategy towards the implementation of action plans agreed in previous international conferences and provide a window of opportunity for resource mobilization and progress on poverty eradication. But regardless of which camp one sides with, many authors agree that it is still very difficult to move forward on many of these objectives, such as the eradication of poverty, the promotion of gender equality and human rights, environmental sustainability and the achievement of a real partnership for development. Despite some progress, achievement of the MDGs is not without significant challenges, which include: Lack of political commitment to implement the objectives and go beyond mere statements and lip service; The inadequate designation of resources to achieve these objectives; and Limited coherence between macroeconomic policies and other programs and/or policies that address these development objectives. The UN also attempted to link development results (as embodied in the MDGs) with development funding. For the first time in 2002, the United Nations convened an International Conference on 3

6 The laying of the foundation to construct a new architecture for development cooperation should be guided by the responsibility and accountability of all countries to universallyaccepted norms and conventions. Financing for Development, which produced the Monterrey Consensus. This declaration aimed to eradicate poverty, achieve sustained economic growth and promote sustainable development. The Consensus also recommended changes to the governance of international financial institutions (especially to the WB, the IMF and the WTO). A reform process of development policies started as part of implementing the Monterrey Consensus. This included reforming official development assistance. These changes led to the passage of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in 2005, within the framework of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC). All these initiatives should be seen as pieces that have come to form what is known as the traditional development cooperation system, which has had a limited impact on the improvement of people s livelihoods around the world. Within recent years, the world has experienced growing inequalities within and between countries, eroded rights and social protection for the poorest groups and indigenous peoples, and an accelerated depletion of natural resources, especially in developing countries. The recent convergence of crises proves that the world is facing a systemic crisis and underlines the need and urgency for fundamental change in the current model. 48

7 Making development cooperation architecture just: governance principles and pillars Building a just development cooperation system: a 12 principle checklist Any reform of the current system must be built upon a stronger framework that is based on results, human rights and gender equality. It must be rooted in broad, democratic ownership and promote participation and accountability. It should be governed by a development cooperation architecture that is equitable, horizontal, democratic and inclusive. Finally it should have accountable and binding mechanisms that enable its implementation. Any new framework has to be assessed against the extent to which it respects, protects and fulfills human rights obligations that have been ratified by countries, including commitments made at the international level. In practice, this would mean pursuing a human rights based approach to development cooperation and its global governance. Embracing such a paradigm establishes principles against which any reform proposal of the current development cooperation system can be measured. In this sense, a just development cooperation system is one that: 1 Respects, protects and fulfills human rights obligations, such as those enshrined in all relevant international instruments including covenants, conventions and declarations as well as commitments made in multilateral forums; 2 Creates a clear accountable system (legally binding) based on human rights and environmental obligations and the responsibilities of each actor (e.g. who should do what for whom ) clearly listing the duties and rights of the different actors. Each country would have common but differentiated responsibilities; 3 Fully uses existing monitoring and reporting systems based on international standards for human rights, decent work, gender equality and other social inequalities to assess the effectiveness and impact of development cooperation on development effectiveness; 4 Ensures the transparency of interventions (disclosing all policy and financial data and making it fully accessible, including fiduciary conditions) and the end of policy conditionalities; 5 Provides legitimate and full membership for the participation of all development actors (governments and multilateral organizations, civil society organizations, private sectors actors, members of parliaments, etc.), taking into account gender equitable representation; 6 Guarantees the participation of civil society organizations (CSOs) through an inclusive process that entails their full membership in decision-making to ensure the representation of diverse constituencies. Space should be provided to support citizens empowerment, enabling their right to raise grievances and seek redress. 7 Moves from fragmentation to convergence by simplifying the current system, particularly the number and mandates of multilateral organizations; 8 Identifies missteps and recognizes a minimal level of failure all development actors need to take and manage risks in order to allow for the innovation required to bring about changes in power dynamics; 9 Responds to the needs of all people (giving priority to marginalized groups) and tackles injustice by using needs- and compensatory-based resource allocations. Such a model implies that external resource allocations by donors should address poverty while, at the same time, compensating for the harmful effects caused by their other policies such as on the environment, trade and migration; 10 Builds on and supports the self-reliant development of Southern countries, recognizing the importance of local knowledge and resources, policy space, and capacity development. It must respect democratic ownership including the primacy of locally developed policy solutions in order to exclude the adoption of global best practices when contextually inappropriate and allow for local experimentation in policy reforms; 11 Fosters the notion of global citizenship by enabling direct information and solidarity links between Northern and Southern citizens; 12 Is forward-looking. Knowledge and analysis must be produced locally and independently, by individual experts or institutions. The resulting findings should also serve to create an early warning system that helps to identify impending crises and emerging trends. 5

8 Key pillars of a just development cooperation architecture A key pillar of the new system should be a Convention on Development Cooperation which would be the basis for an accountable and legitimate international development cooperation system. The laying of the foundation to construct a new architecture for development cooperation should be guided by the responsibility and accountability of all countries to universally-accepted norms and conventions. These are embodied in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration on the Right to Development, Indigenous People Convention, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and other international agreements that have been ratified over the years. Drawing on this groundwork, a human rights approach to development cooperation implies that: A new international legal framework will enforce a harmonization of respective policies, efforts and approaches in promoting international development cooperation; The UN s relevant charter bodies (including subsidiary organs), treaty bodies and various specialized agencies will be the legitimate key actors in the system. This will ensure the enforcement of a rights-based approach to development, highlighting women s rights, gender equality, labor standards and the decent work agenda; The DAC will refine its mandate to focus on its original functions mainly monitoring aid flows; The IMF and World Bank will review their mandates and objectives to be based on a genuine commitment to social and economic justice and increased international cooperation. Their programs and policies will be monitored and reviewed by an inclusive and democratic body under UN auspices. To meet these objectives, the next High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF4, 2011) should be innovative in promoting an inter-institutional arrangement between the OECD Working Party on Aid Effectiveness and the United Nations mechanisms, such as the Development Cooperation Forum (DCF). This will help to begin constructing a new architecture that has legitimacy in membership, ensures the inclusion of all development actors, and builds on existing practices of inclusion (such as full membership for these actors in all its bodies). Following the HLF4, the aim is to move to a more fully coordinated global architecture on aid and development effectiveness. Building on the conclusions of the Monterrey Consensus, the role of the UN is of utmost importance in any reform. For example, following the outcome document of the UN MDG review summit, which took place in September 2010, member states encourage continued efforts in the UNDCF as the focal point within the United Nations system, to carry out a holistic consideration of issues related to international development cooperation, with the participation of all relevant stakeholders. BetterAid proposes that a key pillar of the new system should be a Convention on Development Cooperation which would be the basis for an accountable and legitimate international development cooperation system. The Convention will be the founding element of an inclusive and accountable system to coherently promote development that is both socially-balanced and sustainable (see annex, for further details). The Convention will confirm that all states and actors (including NGOs and CSOs) have a duty and commitment to mutual assistance and respect. It will provide the framework for creating a coherent international system. The Convention is aimed at strengthening commitments to internationally-agreed development goals, addressing common standards for adherence, establishing an independent accountability system and improving international coordination among all actors. Full transparency of data, conditions and decisions will also be among the leading principles of a more democratic and accountable architecture. This will make development commitments more binding and allow for independent monitoring and assessment, with possible sanctions in cases of non-compliance. The Convention will outline the main governance pillars of a new development cooperation landscape in order to move from fragmentation to convergence in terms of the number and mandates of multilateral organizations. It will also clearly set out the responsibilities, duties and rights of different development actors. 6

9 Making development cooperation architecture just: governance principles and pillars The Convention will detail new governance structures that will reduce the complexity and clarify the accountability lines of a reformed international system. The Convention will be negotiated by all development actors (including civil society organizations), each of whom will have full membership in the system (see annex). The process of such an inclusive, multi-stakeholder negotiation within the framework of the UN will give the new system full legitimacy. 7

10 Bibliography Adugna, Abebe (2009). How Much of Official Development Assistance is Earmarked?, CFP Working Paper Series No.2, Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships Vice-Presidency, World Bank, Washington DC, July. African Development Bank (2009). Debt Relief, Aid and Service Delivery. AfDB/Oxford University Press. African Development Bank (2010), Partnerships and Cooperation Opportunities Working Document, Tunis accessed at Generic-Documents/Booklet%20Final.pdf African Monitor (2009). Development Support Monitor 2009 at Africa Progress Panel (2010). Africa Progress Report at Anderson, Edward (2008). Practices and implications of aid allocation, background study for 2008 Development Cooperation Forum, April accessed at pdf/revised%20draft(anderson).pdf AWID (2008). FundHer Brief 2008: Money Watch for Women s Rights Movements and Organizations. AWID: Toronto, Canada. Available at: AWID-Initiatives/Where-is-the-Money-for-Women-s-Rights/What-s-new-from-thisinitiative/ FundHer-Brief-2008-Money-Watch-for-Women-s-Rights-Movements-and-Organizations AWID (2010): Development Cooperation beyond the aid effectiveness paradigm: A women s rights perspective. Available at: Barder, Owen (2010). Aid Effectiveness: Where Is It Going and What Could You Do? Presentation to Ethiopia Development Assistance Group, 19 May, Addis Ababa. Barder, Owen; Gavas, Mikaela; Maxwell, Simon and Johnson, Deborah (2010). Governance of the Aid System and the Role of the EU (background paper for conference on Development Cooperation in Times of Crisis and Achieving the MDGs, Madrid, June). Benn, Julia; Rogerson, Andrew and Steensen, Suzanne (2010). Getting Closer to the Core Measuring Country Programmable Aid. OECD Development Cooperation Directorate Development Brief, June. BetterAid (October, 2010). Development Effectiveness in Development Cooperation: a rightsbased perspective. Available at: policy-papers/393-development-effectiveness-in-development-cooperation.html BetterAid (January, 2010): Development Cooperation: Not Just Aid. Available at: org/images/documents/dev%20coop%20not%20aid_english.pdf Birdsall, N., H. Kharas and A. Mahgoub (Forthcoming). A Quality of Development Assistance Index. Center for Global Development and the Wolfensohn Center for Development at the Brookings Institution. Christiansen, Karin and Rogerson, Andrew (2005). Is the Current Aid Architecture Fit for Purpose?, Background paper for Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting, Barbados, available at CONCORD (2009). Aid Watch Report 2009: Lighten the Load. Accessed at concordeurope.org/files/media/0_internetdocumentseng/3_topics/topics/aidwatch/ AidWatch-report-2008_light.pdf CONCORD (2009c). Aid Watch Update: EU Aid in Jeopardy? Brussels, December. CONCORD (2010). Penalty Against Poverty - More and Better EU Aid Can Score Millennium Development Goals, May, accessed at extranetdocumentseng/navigationsecondaire/workinggroups/aidwatch/aidwatch2010/ report2010/concord_report_light.zip Cruz, C. (2009). Financing for development and women s rights: a critical review. WIDE: Brussels, Belgium. Development Finance International (DFI) / Overseas Development Institute (ODI) (2009). Guide to Donors, accessed at 8

11 Making development cooperation architecture just: governance principles and pillars y&sectionid=2&id=38&itemid=77&lang=en Dreher, Alex; Nunnenkamp, Peter and R. Thiele (2010). Are New Donors Different? Comparing the Allocation of Bilateral Aid between Non-DAC and DAC Donor Countries. Paper presented as AidData Conference, Oxford, March accessed at papers/dreher_nunnenkamp_thiele_2010.pdf Floro, M.; A.; Cagatay, N.; Willoughby, J.; Ertürk, K.; (2003), Género y Financiación para el Desarrollo. INSTRAW: Dominican Republic. Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko (2008). Mainstreaming Global Goals into Development Strategies and Policies Papers, a background study for the Development Cooperation Forum, May. un.org/en/ecosoc/docs/pdfs/mainstreaming_of_iadgs.pdf Hudson, Alan and Jonsson, Linnea (2009). Beyond Aid for Sustainable Development, ODI/OECD Project Briefing 22, May, London, at IBON (2007). Primer on Development and Aid Effectiveness. Available at org IBON (2009). Primer on ODA and Development Effectiveness. Available at org Killen, Brenda and Rogerson, Andrew (2010). Global Governance for International Development: Who s In Charge? OECD Development Brief 2, Consultation Draft, June. Kragelund, Peter (2008). The Return of NON-DAC Donors to Africa: New Prospects for African Development? Development Policy Review, 2008, 26 (5), accessed at sw65215.asp Manning, Richard (2008). Towards a Strengthened Framework for Aid Effectiveness, background study for 2008 Development Cooperation Forum, April, accessed at docs/pdfs/aid_effectiveness_1.pdf The Reality of Aid Network (2010). RoA 2010 Report on Aid and Development Effectiveness: Towards Human Rights, Social Justice and Democracy. Available at United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2009a). The case for increased aid to LDCs for agricultural development, December, accessed ciimem2crp4_en.pdf United Nations ECOSOC Development Cooperation Forum (2008a). Trends and progress in international development cooperation: Report of the Secretary-General, New York, July, accessed at United Nations ECOSOC Development Cooperation Forum (2010). Trends and Progress in International Development Cooperation, Report of the Secretary-General, New York, 10 June, accessed at Wichterich, C. et Menon-Sen, K. (2009). Trade liberalisation, gender equality, policy space: The case of the contested EU-India FTA. WIDE: Brussels, Belgium. 9

12 Endnotes 1 As stated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, part II, article 2 and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article The UN General Assembly adopted resolution 41/128 on 4 December 1986 and issued the Declaration on the Right to Development; relevant provisions are stated in Articles 1, 3 and 4. 3 BetterAid sees development effectiveness as the impact of development actors actions on the lives of poor and marginalized populations. Development effectiveness promotes sustainable change that addresses the root causes as well as the symptoms of poverty, inequality, marginalization and injustice. It also aims to dismantle patriarchal power structures and end women s subordination in productive and reproductive roles. 4 Such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), the Vienna Declaration on Human Rights (1993), the Platform for Action of the Conference on Population and Development (1994), the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995) - the most important referent for international action relating to the gender equality agenda in development and the Kyoto Protocol (1997). Although already adopted in the 1980s, it is important to mention here too the Declaration on the Right to Development adopted by the General Assembly resolution 41/128 of 4 December Cruz, C. (2009). Financing for development and women s rights: a critical review. WIDE: Brussels, Belgium. 6 BetterAid (2010). Development Effectiveness in Development Cooperation: rights-based perspective in org p

13 Annex Initial Proposals for a Convention on Development Cooperation The Convention is premised on existing international legal commitments including: article 1(1) of the UN Charter that refers to member states commitment to international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character ( ) ; article 22 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights that stipulates the entitlement of individuals to see the realization of social security through national effort and international co-operation ; article 2(1) of the ICESCR where Signatory Parties pledge to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures ; In addition, the Social Justice Declaration (2008) of the International Labour Organization (ILO) is an important platform to further develop the Convention s operational and governance implications. Once the Convention is ratified, there will need to be a political plenary for all signatories to the Convention which will include broad representation from civil society. The plenary should be overseen by a new governance body that can: organize regular high level fora for the debate and approval of international development cooperation standards; monitor and regulate international, regional and bilateral development cooperation standards and assess them against international human rights standards; carry out regular monitoring and evaluations of international cooperation standards and processes; produce regular reports on development cooperation, coordination and coherence. This body will include a broad-based and inclusive participation of all development stakeholders. CSO representatives will sit on equal footing with other actors. The annual session will approve evaluations, binding norms and standards by a large qualified majority, taking into account the vote and voices of its different constituencies. A dispute settlement mechanism is crucial to enable the Convention to be credible and resilient. This mechanism will provide a strong degree of lateral accountability. Limited accountability has been one of the main weaknesses of the current cooperation system, encouraging loss of confidence by the main actors. 11

14

15

16