COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS PROPOSAL FOR THE EU COMMON POSITION FOR THE 4TH HIGH LEVEL FORUMON AID EFFECTIVENESS, BUSAN
Date: 2011-09-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: South-South cooperation, administrative transparency, climate change, cost-effectiveness analysis, democratisation, developing countries, development aid, economic aid, governance, international convention

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 7.9.2011 
COM(2011) 541 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

PROPOSAL FOR THE EU COMMON POSITION FOR THE 4TH HIGH LEVEL 
FORUM 
ON AID EFFECTIVENESS, BUSAN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Aid reform originated in the Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development (2002), in 
which the international community agreed to more effective Official Development Assistance 
(ODA).  Subsequent  High  Level  Forums  in  Rome  (2003),  Paris  (2005)  and  Accra  (2008) 
added  principles,  concrete  commitments  and  a  monitoring  framework  to  strengthen  the 
reform.  

The  objective  of  the  4th  High  Level  Forum,  to  be  held  in  Busan  from  29  November  to  1 
December  2011,  is  to  assess  progress  against  agreed  commitments,  review  the  aid 
effectiveness agenda and link it with the wider agenda on development financing. The focus is 
on  supporting  strengthened  development  results  in  the  context  of  new  global  development 
challenges and partnerships, including the engagement of emerging economies. The Forum is 
not  to  duplicate  the  international  agenda  on  Financing  for  Development  but  to  focus  on  the 
added  value  of  aid  effectiveness  in  reducing  poverty  and  achieving  the  Millennium 
Development Goals by 2015.  

The purpose of this Communication is to propose the EU Common Position for Busan to be 
followed  by  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  (hereafter  referred  as  the  EU)  participating  in 
Busan. The Communication assesses progress in implementing the commitments and provides 
proposals on how to focus the aid effectiveness agenda and to extend its principles to other 
actors  and  sources  of  development  finance.  It  also  proposes  streamlining  the  global 
governance structure and focusing on country level implementation. 

2. 

EVIDENCE OF PROGRESS  

For the first time, a wealth of information on aid reform and its impact on development results 
is  available.  The  independent  Phase  II  Evaluation  and  the  Monitoring  Survey  of  the  Paris 
Declaration provide evidence of performance against the Paris and Accra commitments.  

The  evidence  concludes  that  pursuing  the  aid  effectiveness  agenda  has  led  to  aid  quality 
improvements through strengthening norms of good practice and better partnerships. This has 
contributed  to  achieving  development  results.  Evidence  confirms  that  among  the  five  aid 
effectiveness  principles  country  ownership  has  advanced  furthest.  Alignment  and 
harmonisation  have  progressed  unevenly,  while  the  use  of  partner  country  systems  has  not 
increased  despite  improvements  in  those  systems.  Managing  for  development  results  and 
mutual accountability have advanced least. The trend in aid predictability has even gone into 
reverse compared to 2005. Overall, progress is slow on the part of both partner countries and 
donors  as  only  two  out  of  13  targets  have  been  achieved  globally:  coordinated  technical 
cooperation and untying aid.  

The  performance  of  the  Commission  and  14  Member  States1  which  participated  in  the 
Monitoring Survey is better than global performance overall. The EU Operational Framework 
on Aid Effectiveness has been instrumental in this. The Commission and 14 Member States 
perform well on three targets: on joint technical cooperation and in using country systems for 

1 

In addition to the Commission, the Member States that participated in the survey are Austria, Belgium, 
Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Spain, 
Sweden, and United Kingdom. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
public  finance  management  and  procurement.  The  performance  of  the  Commission  and  14 
Member States has been less successful in predictability, use of programme-based approaches 
and  joint  missions.  Aid  fragmentation,  which  increased  between  2005  and  2009,  and 
transparency  remain  as  challenges.  The  preliminary  results  of  a  study  commissioned  by  the 
Commission2  suggest  that  by  implementing  the  Paris  and  Accra  commitments  more 
ambitiously the EU would gain €4 billion a year. 

This  table  summarises  global  performance  and  the  performance  of  the  Commission  and  14 
Member  States  in  32  partner  countries  which  took  part  in  the  2005  and  2010  monitoring 
surveys.  

1 Operational development strategies 
2a Quality of public finance management 
2b Quality of procurement systems 
3 Aid reported on budget  
4 Coordinated technical cooperation 
5a Use of public finance systems 
5b Use of procurement systems 2) 
6 Reducing parallel project implementation units 
7 Aid is more predictable: disbursement as scheduled
8 Aid is untied 3) 
9 Programme-based approaches 
10a Joint missions 
10b Joint analytical work 
11 Results oriented frameworks 
12 Mutual accountability frameworks 
1) Indicator for partner countries 
2) Global score 2010 for all 78 partner countries  
3) Indicator 8 are unweighted averages 

Global  Global  EU3 
2005 
2010 
2005 
1) 
52% 
19% 
1) 
38% 
- 
1) 
- 
- 
42% 
46% 
44% 
40% 
51% 
49% 
48% 
48% 
40% 
51% 
44% 
40% 
- 
32% 
- 
41% 
43% 
42% 
81% 
87% 
80% 
47% 
48% 
43% 
27% 
22% 
20% 
49% 
44% 
41% 
1) 
22% 
7% 
1) 
50% 
44% 

Target  
2010 
75% 
50% 
No target 
85% 
50% 
55% 

EU4 
2010 
1) 
1) 
1)  
51% 
61% 
55% 
66%  No target 
49% 
49% 
82% 
51% 
32% 
59% 
1)  
1) 

66% 
71% 
87% 
66% 
40% 
66% 
38% 
100% 

At global level, slow and varying performance can be partly explained by the fact that it takes 
time  to  reform  practices.  Evidence  suggests  that  most  commitments  have  lacked  political 
support and that approaches to aid effectiveness have been too bureaucratic. In addition, the 
contents of the agenda have been too broad to keep the necessary focus. 

The evidence suggests there is a need to identify key commitments to strengthen aid reform 
and provide a basis for future focus, in line with priorities identified by partner countries: 

Ownership:  Partner  country  ownership  is  fundamental  for  aid  to  achieve  development 
results.  It  needs  to  be  deepened  to  democratic  ownership  to  address  the  importance  of 
inclusive dialogue and strengthened capacities among local stakeholders and institutions. 

Transparency  and  predictability:  Reliable,  well-communicated  aid  flows  are  fundamental 
to increasing partner countries' ability to implement development strategies. Transparency and 
predictability  also  strengthen  democratic  ownership  and  accountability.  They  enable  donor 

2 

3 
4 

See:  http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/ensure-aid-effectiveness/documents/aid-effectiveness-
benefits_en.pdf 
See footnote 1. 
See footnote 1. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
coordination and results reporting. The study suggests that the lack of predictability of EU aid 
costs around €1 billion a year 5. 

Alignment: Aligning with partner country priorities and using country systems are important 
in  supporting  partner  countries’  ownership  and  leadership.  Use  of  country  systems  supports 
the overall capacity development of partner countries to provide effective services  

Accountability for results: Supporting development results is the overall justification for the 
aid effectiveness agenda. Accountability for results, in turn, should be addressed by increasing 
capacity  to  monitor,  measure  and  report  results  and  use  them  for  making  subsequent 
decisions. 

Reduced  fragmentation  and  proliferation:  Proliferation  and  fragmentation  lead  to 
duplication and unnecessary transaction costs. The EU could save more than €700 million a 
year by reducing aid fragmentation6.  

Countries in fragile situations: Evidence shows that aid effectiveness principles are relevant 
to countries in fragile situations, but enhanced implementation of good practices, adaptations 
and flexibility are needed.  

3. 

FUTURE AID EFFECTIVENESS COMMITMENTS 

While reaffirming the Paris principles, the Busan Forum should prioritise and deepen the key 
policy commitments of Paris and Accra. The overall aim is to enable a high level of ambition 
to  support  development  results.  The  Busan  outcome  document  should  be  the  future 
framework  for  aid  effectiveness  encompassing  the  Paris  Declaration  and  the  Accra  Agenda 
for  Action  while  directing  future  implementation  in  priority  themes  and  commitments.  The 
Commission proposes that the EU Common Position should include the following themes and 
proposals  for  commitments  by  partner  countries  and  donors 
including  multilateral 
organisations and vertical funds. 

3.1. 

Ownership 

The  Busan  outcome  document  should  address  ownership  as  a  combination  of  commitments 
on  democratic  ownership,  capacity  development,  strengthened  country  systems  and  results-
based conditionality.  

Partner  countries  should,  with  the  support  of  donors,  commit  to  i)  strengthen  democratic 
ownership,  emphasising  an  approach  in  which  stakeholders  negotiate  a  broad  consensus  on 
development  strategies.  Governments  should  promote  an  enabling  environment  for  different 
stakeholders  -  including  parliaments,  civil  society  organisations  and  the  private  sector  -  to 
bring  their  added  value  into  development  processes.  Such  favourable  conditions  require 
functioning  democratic,  legal  and  judicial  systems  including  respect  for  human  rights  and 
gender  equality.  Democratic  ownership  also  requires  transparency  of  information  on 
development resources including the publication of national budgets. Partner countries should 
ii)  institutionalise  inclusive  and  results-oriented  multi-stakeholder  dialogues,  and  iii) 

5 
6 

See footnote 2.  
See footnote 2. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
safeguard the active participation of groups often excluded from decision-making, particularly 
women.  

Partner countries and donors should iv) reaffirm their commitment to capacity development as 
one  key  element  for  ownership,  and  v)  agree  to  seek  approaches  that  balance  results 
orientation  and  long-term  capacity  development.  Partner  countries  should  commit  to  vi) 
continued leadership in country system reforms, and donors vii) should provide their capacity 
development support according to local priorities, context and capacity and use sectors as the 
primary  entry  point  for  joint  approaches.  Partner  countries  and  donors  viii)  should  work 
together towards harmonised and results-based conditionality.  

3.2. 

Transparent, harmonised and aligned partnerships  

Transparency and predictability 

The  main  achievement  in  transparency  since  Accra  has  been  the  agreement  and 
implementation of the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) standard by its current 
20  signatories,  including  nine  from  the  EU.  In  Busan,  donors  should  reaffirm  their 
commitment  to  publicly  disclose  regular,  detailed  and  timely  information  on  aid  volumes, 
conditions and the results of development expenditure. This should be done on an annual and 
rolling  three-  to  five-year  basis  to  enable  accurate  budgeting,  accounting  and  auditing  by 
partner countries. 

In  Busan,  donors  should  commit  to  i)  develop  internal  systems  which  allow  for  multi-year 
budgeting  of  development  cooperation,  ii)  adapt  a  global  reporting  standard  based  on  IATI 
and the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Creditor Reporting System, iii) develop 
and  implement  mechanisms  which  align  aid  data  standards  with  partner  countries'  budget 
classifications and iv) disclose all country-specific information of the DAC forward spending 
exercise, including more detailed information at sector level. Partner country commitments on 
transparency are integral parts of democratic ownership and accountability commitments.  

In Busan, the EU should send a strong political message on EU leadership on transparency by 
launching an 'EU Transparency Guarantee' based on the existing transparency commitments 
adopted in the EU Operational Framework on Aid Effectiveness. 

Reduced fragmentation and proliferation 

Despite  high  investments  by  the  EU  on  division  of  labour,  aid  fragmentation  still  presents 
challenges. The results of country and sector concentration take time to materialise, however, 
global efforts need to be increased. 

The Paris and Accra commitments have not fully addressed the political nature of division of 
labour. In addition, evaluation shows that partner countries have not been able or prepared to 
lead in determining the optimal roles of donors.  

In  Busan,  donors  should  commit  to  i)  proceed  further  with  concentration  and  division  of 
labour while recognising that political decision making is essential for success, ii) move from 
individual country strategies towards joint assistance strategies among those donors that have 
the  political  will  to  work  together,  and  iii)  avoid  further  proliferating  vertical  funds  and 
instead  use  and  strengthen  the  existing  channels.  Donors  and  partner  countries  should  iv) 
promote  a  global  high-level  debate  on  cross-country  division  of  labour  based  on  the  DAC's 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
analytical  work  on  fragmentation  and  forward-looking  plans,  also  addressing  under-funded 
countries.  

Alignment 

The evidence confirms that aligning with partner countries' national priorities and using their 
systems  makes  aid  more  effective.  Use  of  country  systems  does  not  refer  solely  to  budget 
support  but  is  equally  important  for  project  support.  Partner  country  governments  have  the 
lead in strengthening country systems while the identification and mitigation of risks should 
be done jointly by partner countries and donors. 

In  Busan,  donors  should  i)  reaffirm  their  current  commitment  to  align  with  the  partner 
countries'  national  development  plans,  and  ii)  to  use  and  strengthen,  together  with  partner 
countries, country systems for all aid modalities for more effective institutions and policies.  

3.3. 

Accountability for results 

The  overall  justification  for  the  aid  effectiveness  agenda  is  that  it  supports  achieving 
development results. Yet performance on results is significantly off track. The same applies to 
performance  on  mutual  accountability  between  partner  countries  and  donors  and  with  their 
respective publics.  

Both partner countries and donors are increasingly accountable to their publics on the use of 
aid  funds  and  achieving  results.  While  some  countries  have  initiated  mutual  accountability 
frameworks  according  to  the  Paris  and  Accra  commitments,  they  need  to  be  rolled  out 
universally and also include accountability for results. 

While Paris and Accra affirmed the importance of managing aid to get results, in Busan the 
ability  to  measure  and  report  results  should  be  at  centre  stage.  However,  the  pressure  to 
deliver  results  should  not  compromise  the  longer  term  process  of  developing  partner 
countries'  capacities  to  plan,  deliver,  measure  and  report  development  results.  Donor 
assessments of results should be based, to the extent possible, on partner countries' reports on 
results.  

In  Busan,  partner  countries  and  donors  should  deepen  their  accountability  for  development 
results  by  committing  to  i)  increased  investment  in  developing  the  statistical  capacity  of 
partner  countries,  including  through  the  initiative  Paris217,  and  ii)  strengthen  partner 
countries' monitoring and evaluation capacities to track development results. Partner countries 
and donors should commit to iii) transparent reporting on development results using partner 
countries' assessment frameworks, iv) the universal use of mutual accountability frameworks 
tailored to country contexts to monitor progress on commitments and results and v) strengthen 
results-based decision-making for aid investments. 

3.4. 

Countries in fragile situations 

The  Paris  Declaration  and  Accra  Agenda  for  Action  recognised  that  aid  effectiveness 
principles are relevant in fragile situations. However, they need to be tailored to the specific 
challenges  of  countries  in  fragile  situations  stemming  from  weak  ownership  and  capacities 

7 

Paris21 is a consortium by partner countries and donors with a secretariat hosted by the Organisation 
for Economic Co-operation and Development ( OECD), see http://www.paris21.org/ 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  the  urgent  needs  for  basic  service  delivery.  The  results  of  monitoring  the  10  specific 
Fragile  States  Principles8  show  that,  while  aid  effectiveness  principles  remain  relevant,  the 
way they are implemented in situations of fragility needs more fine-tuning.  

The Busan outcome should i) recognise and support the work of the International Dialogue on 
Peacebuilding  and  Statebuilding,  and  the  growing  leadership  of  the  g7+9  countries  by 
endorsing  the  Monrovia  Roadmap  on  Peacebuilding  and  Statebuilding  as  a  framework  for 
defining  and  measuring  results  in  fragile  states,  ii)  endorse  the  DAC  guidance  on  state 
building,  transition  financing  and  risk  management  in  fragile  situations,  and  iii)  call  upon 
donors  to  adapt  their  procedures  for  decision-making,  funding  and  implementation  to  the 
specific challenges of situations of fragility.  

4. 

EXTENDING  AID  EFFECTIVENESS  PRINCIPLES  TO  OTHER 
DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AND ACTORS  

SOURCES  OF 

The evidence suggests that aid effectiveness commitments are relevant beyond their present 
scope in terms of actors and sources of development financing. The increasing importance of 
non-DAC donors calls for their wider participation in the aid effectiveness agenda and in the 
Busan Forum. The following sections addressing development effectiveness include the actors 
and sources of finance which can bring added value to effective development cooperation and 
which should be a priority in the Busan Forum.  

4.1. 

Role of the emerging economies and South-South cooperation 

Emerging  economies  are  playing  a  rapidly  growing  role  in  supporting  partner  countries, 
including  through  South-South  cooperation.  It  is  important  that  Busan  is  used  as  an 
opportunity to strengthen the global development partnership based on the diverse approaches 
to and experiences of development. 

Contributing  to  development  results  is  relevant  to  all  stakeholders  providing  development 
financing.  The  Busan  Forum  should  include  an  exchange  between  partner  countries,  donors 
and emerging economies  to  share  experiences in achieving results. Based on this the Busan 
Forum  could  build  towards  shared  principles  and  differentiated  commitments.  Aid 
effectiveness principles can provide added value in formulating them.  

The relevance of South-South and Triangular cooperation should be reaffirmed in Busan. To 
strengthen  the  results  of  these  cooperation  channels,  the  Busan  outcome  should  address 
complementarities  between  North-South  and  South-South  partners  based  on  transparency 
regarding development financing flows. The Busan outcome should also emphasise the role of 
regional platforms for knowledge-sharing on successful  development experiences as well as 
capacity development and aid management practices. 

8 

9 

Fragile States Principles refer to the Principles of Good International Engagement in Fragile States to 
which OECD countries committed themselves in 2007. 
The g7+ is an independent and autonomous forum of fragile and conflict affected countries and regions 
inaugurated at the first International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, held in Dili, Timor-
Leste in 2010. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.2. 

Civil society organisations, local authorities and private foundations 

Building on the Accra Agenda for Action and the results of the EU Structured Dialogue, the 
Busan  outcome  should  reaffirm  the  recognition  of  civil  society  organisations  (CSOs)  as 
independent  actors  in  their  own  right  and  acknowledge  that  CSOs  complement  the  roles  of 
governments  and  the  for-profit  private  sector.  In  addition,  the  Busan  outcome  should 
recognise  the  role  of  local  authorities  when  they  have  autonomy  and  the  right  to  initiate 
specific interventions supportive of local development needs. 

In  Busan,  civil  society  organisations  and  local  authorities  from  donor  and  partner  countries 
should be called on to continue their ongoing efforts to enhance accountability, transparency 
and  integrity  in  their  operations  based  on  self-regulatory  mechanisms  such  as  the  Istanbul 
CSO development effectiveness principles10. 

The  Paris  principles  are  also  applicable  to  private  foundations  that  have  an  increasingly 
important  role  as  donors.  Foundations  should  be  called  upon  to  make  adaptations  to  the 
Istanbul principles to fit their activities and partnerships. 

Finally,  when  acting  as  donors,  international  CSOs  and  private  foundations  should  promote 
local  ownership  by  acknowledging  the  lead  of  local  civil  society  in  taking  the  initiative  in 
identifying local development needs.  

4.3.  Working together with the private for-profit sector  

The  emergence  of  private  actors  offers  different  viewpoints  and  solutions  to  development 
challenges. This calls for closer involvement of the private sector in development cooperation 
to  strengthen  the  catalytic  role  of  aid.  Increased  cooperation  should  be  based  on  the  aid 
effectiveness principles. 

Blending of loans with grants and further use of innovative financial instruments (risk capital, 
guarantees,  risk-sharing)  in  cooperation  with  multilateral  and  bilateral  institutions  offers 
means  to  leverage  additional  development  funding  from  the  private  sector.  In  Busan, 
development partners should be called on to further develop and increase the use of blending 
and  innovative  financial  instruments.  Furthermore,  the  private  sector  should  be  called  on  to 
take  an  active  role  in  development  cooperation  through  public-private-partnerships  and 
corporate social responsibility practices.  

4.4. 

International climate change finance as part of Official Development Assistance 

The Copenhagen-Cancun process agreed on substantial finance to address climate change: so-
called Fast Start Finance amounting to $30 billion over the years 2010-2012 and an increase 
in public and private funding to reach $100 billion per year by 2020.  

The  Busan  outcome  should  i)  endorse  the  application  of the  aid  effectiveness  principles  to 
climate  change  finance  and  target  similar  endorsement  in  the  Copenhagen-Cancun-Durban 
process, 
the United  Nations  Framework  Convention  on  Climate  Change 
Transitional Committee to include the aid effectiveness principles in the design of the Green 
Climate Fund, and iii) make a commitment to assess the application of the aid effectiveness 

ii)  ask 

10 

http://www.cso-effectiveness.org/IMG/pdf/final_istanbul_cso_development_effectiveness_principles_footnote.pdf 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
principles  regularly  through  the  Monitoring,  Reporting  and  Verification  mechanism  on 
climate finance. 

5. 

FUTURE AID EFFECTIVENESS GOVERNANCE AND MONITORING  

At  present,  the  key  elements  for  efficient  aid  effectiveness  governance  are  not  sufficiently 
addressed. First, continuous political support has not fully materialised and has mainly been 
restricted to the three High Level Forums. Second, country level implementation has not been 
adequately  supported  by  global  structures  and  the  DAC-hosted  Working  Party  on  Aid 
Effectiveness (WP-EFF) has become a self-standing, heavy bureaucracy. Third, monitoring of 
the  Paris  commitments  has  taken  place,  but  this  has  not  been  adapted  to  country  contexts. 
Finally, mutual accountability frameworks have not been developed in all partner countries, 
and their outcomes have not been systematically debated at the global level. 

In  Busan,  the  decisions  on  governance  should  be  sufficiently  detailed  to  avoid  lengthy 
discussions  after  Busan.  In  general,  the  governance  structure  should  have  wide  coverage  of 
different  development  partners.  Post-Busan  governance  should  contain  the  following 
elements:  

First,  political  engagement  and  decision-making  should  be  addressed  by  emphasising  links 
between aid effectiveness implementation and global development policy forums. This could 
be done through regular high level debates on progress in International Monetary Fund/World 
Bank and DAC Senior and High Level Meetings.  

Second,  country  level  implementation  should  be  strengthened  through  'country  compacts'  in 
which  partner  countries,  based  on  multi-stakeholder  consultation,  agree  on  locally  adapted 
Busan  priorities  and  targets  with  their  developments  partners,  using  existing  local 
mechanisms for mutual accountability. 

Third,  the  WP-EFF  should  be  streamlined,  with  the  termination  of  most  of  the  current 
clusters.  It  should  be  tasked  to  facilitate  country  level  implementation  (helpdesk  function, 
synthesis, good practices) and to conduct global monitoring together with the DAC. The DAC 
should  become  an  international  hub  for  transparency  and  the  host  organisation  of  the  IATI. 
The  UN  Development  Cooperation  Forum  should  focus  on  strengthening  global  mutual 
accountability. 

Finally, global monitoring should be conducted in connection with the 2015 deadline for the 
Millennium Development Goals. The Paris indicators should be reduced to reflect the focused 
agenda. The indicators to be included should address ownership (indicators 1, 2), alignment 
(indicators 3 and 5), predictability and transparency (indicator 7) and accountability for results 
(indicator  12),  resulting  in  an  equal  number  of  indicators  for  partner  countries  and  donors. 
The  baseline  for  indicators  should  be  kept  the  same  to  enable  measurement  of  long-term 
progress.  Country  level  monitoring,  in  turn,  should  be  based  on  existing  local  mechanisms. 
Generic lessons should be distilled at the global level through the WP-EFF and the DAC.  

6. 

CONCLUSIONS  

The Busan Forum will be a key opportunity to focus the aid effectiveness agenda to increase 
the impact of aid on development results. Informed decisions are possible due to the wealth of 
evidence  available  on  aid  reform.  Sustained  political  support  will  be  crucial  for  effective 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
implementation. To this effect, the Commission proposes the EU continues its leadership in 
aid effectiveness by pursuing the following objectives: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

The  Busan  outcome  should  be  an  encompassing  document  reaffirming  the  Paris 
Principles, based on the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action and focusing 
on  deepened  key  commitments  to  guide  future  implementation.  All  DAC  donors, 
vertical funds and multilateral organisations should fully adhere to the principles and 
commitments. 

Aid  effectiveness  themes  included  in  the  Busan  document  should  be  democratic 
ownership, transparency and predictability, reduced fragmentation and proliferation, 
and  alignment  as  well  as  accountability  for  results.  Commitments  in  situations  of 
fragility should be deepened in a flexible manner.  

Aid  effectiveness  implementation  should  be  anchored  at  the  country  level  through 
flexible partner country led 'country compacts' based on existing local mechanisms. 
The  global  aid  effectiveness  governance  structure  and  monitoring  should  be 
streamlined. 

Diverse  experiences  of  achieving  development  results  and  interpretations  of  aid 
effectiveness principles should be invited from the emerging economies, CSOs and 
local  authorities  as  well  as  the  for-profit  and  non-profit  private  sector  in  order  to 
work towards differentiated responsibilities and commitments.  

Aid  effectiveness  commitments  should  be  extended  to  cover  other  sources  of 
development finance, particularly climate change finance. 

EN 

10 

   EN