Civil Society Assessment of the Nairobi Outcome Document

10 February 2017

I. Introduction
The 2nd High Level Meeting of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (HLM2) was an important moment to ensure that Aid and Development Effectiveness commitments are upheld and all stakeholders commit to being accountable. For CSOs it was important to have an honest conversation around how all stakeholders have delivered on their commitments to make development cooperation effective in reducing poverty and inequality despite the challenging landscape.

The moment was crucial as all development partners were expected to maximise commitments to contribute in delivering the ambitious 2030 Agenda. GPEDC, as a multi-stakeholder platform, should demonstrate good practice in delivering on commitments and producing results. The Busan Principles of democratic ownership, focus on results, inclusive development partnerships, and transparency and accountability should be the impetus for behavior change.

In the HLM2, the CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) championed the universal application of effective development cooperation principles. Our call was for all parties committed to the Effective Development Co-operation principles to be accountable; to continue to work with civil society as equal partners and to commit to people and planet over profit.

CSOs worked hard throughout the negotiation process and CPDE appreciates the resulting Nairobi Outcome Document (NOD). We welcome the upholding of previous commitments as central to moving forward with the effective development cooperation agenda. By doing so, the NOD not only advances the role of the GPEDC, it strengthens the role of effective development co-operation in advancing the 2030 Agenda.

CPDE recognises the GPEDC’s resolve “to reverse the trend of shrinking of civic space…” and the commitment to “…providing an enabling environment for civil society” (§18). References to “International Labour Organisation standards, United Nations Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises” (§80) for the business sector’s work in development were also important features of the document.

We commend all present in HLM2 for these achievements. Particularly, we recognise Kenya’s skillful facilitation of the NOD negotiations that made this possible. Through its leadership, stronger language on gender equality, women’s empowerment and youth’s role in development was realised.

Despite these important achievements, CPDE still has some concerns.

This document is CPDE’s assessment of the Nairobi Outcome Document against our advocacy imperatives.

Continue reading the assessment here. 


Read the Nairobi Outcome Document here.

Comment(1)

  1. Lanre Rotimi says

    This Important assessment document was posted on 14 February haven been prepared a week earlier on 7 February. We are concerned that despite serious issues of serious business demanding serious attention of CSO constituency within GPEDC, this is the first comment.

    This post is dated 7 February but the link to the assessment document present a document dated 10 February. This is not tidy.

    The assessment notes that HLM2 reaffirmed the need to honor commitments made in Rome (2003), Paris (2005), Accra (2008), Busan (2011) and the 1st GPEDC High-Level Meeting in Mexico City (2014). However, without knowing why these past commitments were not honored, it will be especially difficult moving fro rhetoric to reality in the work towards ensuring that HLM2 NOD comments are honored.

    It is not enough that HLM2 NOD underlines time bound action plans. The Big issue is How will the Action Plans provisions be fully Implemented with effective Monitoring and Evaluations of this Implementation at Community, Sun-national, National, Sub-regional, Regional and Global levels in each of 306/193 UN Member States that are GPEDC Members.

    It is pertinent to note that UN Member States are more interested in CSOs being Observers at International Fora rather than being Participants at these events given the contents of existing UNGA Resolutions / Declarations especially – Resolution 41/128 – Right to Development, Resolution 67/290 – Right to Participation and Resolution 70/1 Right to Transformation. Our view is that the full implementation of HLM2 NOD action plans with effective monitoring and evaluation of this implementation greatly depends on ensuring full implementation with effective evaluation of these Declarations / Resolutions and related Declarations / Resolutions.

    It is pertinent to note further that complex issues including leaving-no-one-behind; alignment and harmonization; ownership; remaining Original PD/BD Principles still present real problems on the ground from Community to Global levels and that finding sustainable solutions to these real and complex problems greatly depends on all GPEDC constituencies facing new direction and adopting new priorities. This underlines urgent need to overhaul GPEDC decayed systems and in ways that Re-engineer GPEDC to be effective and efficient Multi Stakeholder Platform / Partnership, MSP fit for the 21st Century.

    In view of the above, without taking anything away from Giant Strides made in HLM2, it is very important work on HLM3 that avoids flaws and failures; shortcomings, drawbacks and hindrances in HLM2 should start immediately. The starting point is to convert HLM2 NOD that is presently Vision and Words without Action into a revised document that is Vision and Words with Action.

Post a comment

Translate »