Towards Local Leadership for Development – Anas El Hasnaoui
Towards Local Leadership for Development – Anas El Hasnaoui
Between February 19 and 21, two meetings were held in Bangkok, Thailand, bringing together members of Reality of Aid Asia-Pacific and the Civil Society Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) Asia, as well as partners working with international financial institutions and the Development Effectiveness Agenda.
The meetings took place amidst the deterioration of civic spaces and multiple economic crises, and within an institutional context marked by preparations for two global summits on financing for development and international cooperation effectiveness. Regarding the first topic, discussions are continuing on several levels on the draft outcome document, which will be presented at the Fourth Financing for Development Summit in Seville in June 2025. As for development effectiveness, this year marks the final stage in preparing the Voluntary National Reports on Monitoring Development Effectiveness before presenting their findings at the Third Summit of the International Partnership for Development Cooperation Effectiveness. ANND joined both meetings as a member of the coordinating bodies of the two international networks.
The two dynamics draw their reference from previous summit decisions, particularly the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the Busan Summit Decisions and their updates, both committed to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals.
Based on the mandates of the two international civil society frameworks, the discussions and documents presented revolved around three issues:
1) The political context of development effectiveness issues through exchanging ideas on emerging trends and key regional priorities.
2) Localizing the debate and advocacy on development effectiveness to develop a locally-led development strategy that anchors the development cooperation agenda on the social ground.
3) Preparing civil society organizations within the region to address existing and future challenges, raising awareness thereof, and expanding engagement with the financing and effective development cooperation agendas.
Six working papers were presented in the section on moving towards a locally led future, addressing trends and challenges in development cooperation and how they impact marginalized communities and vulnerable sectors. They highlighted, on the one hand, how recipient countries bear the consequences of cutting public spending (basic necessities such as healthcare and education, etc.; in short, austerity programs) to repay loans, and, on the other hand, the increasing militarization in the region to mitigate conflicts over harmful "development" projects. This last section featured a remarkable paper from Palestine, which examined the negative impact of aid in light of the Israeli aggression against Palestine and the Arab region as a whole.
The subsequent discussion focused on identifying key issues in the Asia-Pacific region that civil society organizations could prioritize as areas for advocacy over the next two years. The most prominent issues highlighted included the climate crisis, shrinking space for civic action, economic crises and debt, corporate capture of development, digitalization, and post-war development cooperation.
As part of the overall goal of integrating community-led development into current and future programs and approaches of civil society organizations, RoA-AP presented its own efforts on the community-led agenda, addressing the principles of the humanitarian-development-peace nexus, effective development cooperation, a focus on results, state ownership, inclusive partnership, and transparency and accountability as intersecting frameworks.
Participants addressed several points to provide strategies for activities related to integrating the issues mentioned above with economic and social development principles and to ensure that these activities are locally led. Most notably, they mentioned the integration of local territorial governance into national strategies, particularly for addressing the three global crises: climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution; applying the principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) as a prerequisite for projects and an integral part of effective community engagement and consultation; promoting an enabling environment for civil society organizations and zero tolerance for retaliation; and maximizing the use of development effectiveness monitoring tools to highlight local community challenges, experiences, and alternatives.
In the second part of the meeting program, participants explored the key policy areas in which they engage, intending to adapt and engage in strategic planning in the face of multiple crises. They shared their experiences in their relationships with international financial institutions, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).
They then outlined their advocacy objectives, the extent of their engagement over the years, the responses they received, and the results they achieved through collaboration with these institutions. Despite some positive interventions, these multilateral bodies continue to fall short of their commitments. Furthermore, calls by civil society organizations to consistently engage local communities in consultations and integrate a gender perspective into their policies, among other things, have not been heeded.
Some lessons learned regarding the integration of positive gender impacts, civil society coordination mechanisms, and language reform within the institutions above opened new horizons for how to improve strategy development and learn from each other's experiences. Following the mapping exercise, the groups reconvened to develop an actionable campaign plan for the next two years.
Some of the participants' campaign plans included recommendations for more binding agreements through UN-led processes, mobilizing social movements, ensuring effective community participation, and greater accountability to international financial institutions and other UN-led institutions. Key slogans, such as "More Finance to Address Adaptation," "Making Commitments Happen," and "Transparency Is Not an Option," were proposed to reinforce established civil society advocacy and reflect the groups' campaign objectives.
The Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation and its Fourth Monitoring Round
In addition to policy discussions and strategic workshops, the meeting also reintroduced the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) to participants, as part of the broader effort of the Civil Society Organizations Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE) to promote and disseminate the locally led effective development cooperation agenda and GPEDC principles.
GPEDC is launching its Fourth Monitoring Round, also known as 4MR, in which partner countries voluntarily report on progress in implementing economic cooperation and development principles. Yemen and Jordan are participating in this fourth round and making significant strides in this area, but without any representation of civil society from either country. On the same topic, participants from Nepal, a 4MR reporting country, presented the evolution of the effectiveness agenda, achievements from Paris to Busan, and the four principles of development effectiveness. Representatives from Indonesia shared their civil society experiences in engaging with their government, detailing the GPEDC monitoring roadmap. The Philippines shared their experiences in reporting and engagement, discussing the monitoring framework and questionnaire, as well as the reporting toolkit and process.
The participants then discussed how to enhance their engagement in the development effectiveness process through their national and local governments, taking into account the advocacy objectives and strategic points they had discussed.
Some of the action points raised by the groups included improving the CSO toolkit to better reflect community narratives, drawing lessons from existing CSO processes, and organizing multi-stakeholder dialogues to encourage government institutions to actively participate in the GPEDC process.
Recent publications
