The Territorial Approach in the Path Towards Effectiveness and Efficiency

THE TERRITORIAL APPROACH IN THE PATH TOWARDS EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY INSTRUMENTS FOR OPERATIVENESS The UNDP/ART Initiative Experience November 2011

THE TERRITORIAL APPROACH IN THE PATH TOWARDS EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY. INSTRUMENTS FOR OPERATIVENESS THE UNDP/ART INITIATIVE EXPERIENCE

CONTENTS

1. Rethinking Aid ............................................................................................................................................................................ 05 a) b) c) d)

The local realm and development cooperation in a period of uncertainties and crisis A new agenda for changing scenarios Aid effectiveness: Busan and beyond The galaxy of the local realm and decentralized cooperation

2. The local realm in the UNDP / ART laboratory ......................................................................................................................... 12 a) ART, an initiative to innovate 1. Towards a new multilateralism 2. Decentralized cooperation in the multilateral framework b) Instruments to enhance effectiveness 3. Articulation of actors and levels: the spaces of democratic governance 4. Participative strategic planning: complying with the Paris Declaration principles 5. Territorial associations for reciprocal development: networks and the multilateral framework 6. Measuring effectiveness at the local level: the added value of the UNDP/ART instrument

3. The road to Busan, the international consultative process on aid effectiveness at the local level ................................... 25 a) b) c) d) e)

Objectives and phases General reflections Challenges Opportunities Final reflections

4. Recommendations for operativeness, based on the UNDP/ART experience ....................................................................... 29 5. Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................................... 30 6. Co-organizers and participants of the international consultative process .......................................................................... 33

Copyright c 2011 by the United Nations Development Programme 1 UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017, USA

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission.

2

FOREWORD

Stepped up efforts towards more comprehensive and coherent development policies and accompanying development cooperation are required to meet MDG commitments by 2015. Achieving development results will need more than Official Development Assistance, i.e. global and domestic resource mobilisation, enhanced development cooperation, better allocation of resources available to development, establishment of more accountable and transparent global, regional, country and local frameworks, as well as greater investments in recipient country capacities to exit from aid. It will also need scaled up efforts at national and local levels through better alignment of local‐regional‐national‐global development processes that can highly contribute to development effectiveness.

The rapid expansion and diversification of development cooperation actors, global and vertical funds, NGOs, foundations, private sector, and increasing south‐south cooperation pose both opportunities and challenges for the effectiveness of development assistance. In this framework, an important opportunity is to scale up cooperation between municipalities, provinces, regions and the social and economic actors of the respective territories as an added value to the development effort offered by decentralized cooperation.

The Fourth High Level Forum (HLF4) on Aid Effectiveness is the last in a series of four conferences on aid effectiveness, launched by the OECD DAC in 2003 (Rome HLF). It is an important event in the discussions around the emerging aid architecture leading up to 2015 and how to make development assistance work better. Its outcomes will also inform the discussions on international development cooperation at the upcoming Rio+20 conference.

To prepare for this substantive discussion in Busan, as well as to gather evidence on the challenges and opportunities offered by the territorial approach to development cooperation, the UNDP/ART programme launched an initiative to provide evidence on what works and what needs to be enhanced in decentralized cooperation and at the local level. The initiative focused on identifying lessons and good practices that can be useful to scale up development results at territorial level and implement aid effectiveness principles, as well as how best can the diverse actors, including UNDP/ART, contribute to better development results and MDG achievement at local level by maximizing their joint efforts.

Evidence is compelling in showing that the application of aid effectiveness principles at the local level can result in accelerating MDG achievement, fostering governance and sustainable human development. Local level actors (Governments, CSOs, marginalized groups) contribution is key to ensure inclusive ownership and achieve development, particularly at the local level. This publication addresses the challenges, opportunities, practices and lessons of the territorial approach in development cooperation towards sustainable development results.

Daša Šilović Senior Policy Adviser Capacity development Group, Bureau for Development Policy

3

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Target for the Report The main objective of this document is to highlight the following issues: 1) The contributions that the incorporation of the territorial approach makes to the understanding of the Paris Declaration principles; 2) The importance of having instruments in the field that allow capitalizing on the active role of cooperation between municipalities, provinces, regions and the social and economic actors of the respective territories; this relation is decentralized cooperation’s added value and legacy; 3) The input that the instruments and practices tested by UNDP/ART at the local level offer to the debate on aid effectiveness and the objectives of sustainable human development.

This document upholds the thesis that integrating the territorial dimension to development assistance management, a role that was situated by the Paris Declaration (hereinafter PD) at the central government level, is a necessary condition to achieve higher standards in complex processes such as decentralization, local development and multilevel governance.

Moreover, it would contribute to a cooperation modality that is more effective in supporting these processes. Specifically, the document considers that the articulation framework and operational instruments used and validated by the practices of UNDP/ART are an original and innovative contribution that strengthens the area designated in the OCED’s 2011 evaluation of the PD as one of the most fragile: aid management. The linkage between the effectiveness of the territorial approach and the efficacy of development processes is another important aspect of the arguments presented herewith.

4

1. RETHINKING AID The analysis and policy recommendations of this Report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme.

a) The local realm and development cooperation in a period of uncertainties and crisis We live in a period marked by contrasting trends: market integration is juxtaposed to the deepening of inequalities between and within countries; the dissolution of social relations, to the simultaneous emergence of new ones; isolated actions, to the creation of territorial and inter‐territorial networks; a persisting logic of development that downgrades the local realm to an auto‐referential space, to the consolidation of ideas and concepts that understand it as an articulated process of levels – of Transforming the crisis in an opportunity for varying numbers depending on the countries–, linked to the national progress towards a more equitable and sustainable and global levels. This complexity is where the “black swans” emerge development (Taleb 2007); that is, highly improbable and high impact events that characterize the current context (ecological disasters, financial crises, pandemics, conflicts of varying levels of violence); it also presents the difficult challenge of transforming the crisis into an opportunity for change and advancement towards a more equitable, inclusive and sustainable development (UNDP 2010a).

Both in the South and North, the diffused and different decentralization processes constitute inevitable components of the current transformations. Together with democratization processes, these open new spaces for the recognition of the citizens‐elected administrations democratic binomial as actors of development and cooperation to development, at both the regional and provincial/municipal levels. On the other hand, decentralization constitutes an ambiguous framework.

Efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery, equity and pertinence of policies, the fight against poverty and for a better social cohesion are all related to decentralization in various ways, in more than one continent and in different contexts. The same holds true in relation to inter‐border tensions, ethnic and religious conflicts, territorial confrontations and various forms of separatism. Only the analysis of the particularities of each process allows grasping the true nature of its links to democracy and social equity. Cooperation alone cannot be the answer to the challenge posed by these problems, but it can contribute to offering solutions, namely as a facilitator of a “dialogue between territories” from both the North and South, on issues of common interest that influence positively or negatively the lives of citizens and lie at the heart of the decisions of local administrators and national politicians. This is why it is of outmost importance to provide decentralized cooperation with instruments that enable the full development of its potential in terms of dialogue and concertation, innovation in local management, inter‐institutional coordination and linkage between national policies and territorial processes, as well as cohesion and balancing economic and social interests, which in turn strengthens the inclusive and integrative dimensions of decentralization.

In the last decades, the expansion in the wave of democratizations and the attractive force of democratic systems has nonetheless been coupled with an equally significant decrease in democratic quality. Various scholars have referred to “Illiberal democracies” (Zakaria, 2003), “democracies without election possibilities” (Mkandawire 2006) or “excluding democracies” (Abrahamsen 2000), to name but a few. Nevertheless, this decline has been accompanied by a higher citizen participation in local, “proximity”, policies1. The construction of a governance modality based on inclusiveness,

1

In this document, the term “local” is used in its general connotation, encompassing the various levels of administrative subdivisions present in the different countries (regions / province / municipalities).

5

transparency and accountability records its most important advances at this level. It is at the municipal and regional levels ‐ South or the North ‐ that many experiences are carried out to test new forms of interaction between local governments and economic and social actors from the territory. Through dialogue, territories seek to face important challenges of common interest from various angles; such challenges are migration, the environment, human security, employment, and health.

This dialogue constitutes the backdrop of relationships and reflection processes that facilitates local inclusive decisions, generating a positive spillover effect on various issues of national and international relevance. In short, the response to the structural demand for a “better” democracy is characterized by the integration of innovative participatory and deliberative mechanisms to its representative forms, based on the citizenry‐local elected administrations’ binomial. Many of these democratic decentralization practices are situated in the South (Latin America, Asia, Africa), turning this region into a place for experimenting original processes of social change: they free it of the “passive recipient of aid” stigma and of those societies devoid of spaces for subjective action, while creating completely new contexts for international cooperation, where In the globalization context, the local realm gains modalities such as South‐South Cooperation emerge, slowly sketching relevance instead of losing it a new aid paradigm.

In the globalization context, the local realm does not necessarily coincide with the smallest dimension of state planning; it is structured as a territory, a relational space, a series of social processes characterized by modalities that enable inhabitants to express their culture and identity within surrounding environmental conditions that settled over time. The networks that organize and hold the territory together simultaneously link it to other territories and to the national and global levels. The local realm hence acquires a multilevel character (Sassen 2002): it is configured as a knot of fluxes where the short networks of physical proximity are intertwined with the longer Roots and wings trans‐local and global networks, based on shared interests, objectives and social horizons.

The conception of the local level as the lowest echelon of a spatial hierarchy that culminates in the central State is nowadays definitely in crisis. Regional and local governments have become the leading figures of development policies in important sectors such as health, social, environmental and migration policies and also of international “multilayered” activities inserted in the framework of the central State’s policies. At the same time, they also independently promote the economic vocations of their respective territories. Various experiences reveal how the increasing importance of these local actors in their various levels does not lead to a loss of power by the central government, but rather represents an opportunity for reciprocal strengthening, following a logic of positive sum, whereby each “player” gains something (Hocking 1999): national policies achieve “roots” while territorial policies obtain “wings” for their actions.

These moving scenarios also undergo complex phenomena such as the changing North‐South relations. Under the impact of globalization processes, a global North and South emerge, transcending geographical differences and designing a leopard skin, “islands‐like” map, with irregular lines that mark and deepen the internal differences of each area. The South is increasingly segregated between countries that embark in high growth processes and reduce their distance from the North, and less developed countries (LDCs) which, in contrast, see their marginalization worsen and deepen, while inequalities rise within each of these groups (World Bank 2009). Advances and regressions fragment the North with an equally intense strength. This very same poverty exhibits multiple dimensions and a distribution pattern that is no longer concentrated in a defined area of countries ‐ the LDCs‐: in fact, it is now also increasingly present in the middle income countries (MICs) and extends its presence to the “heart” of the North as well, which well confirms that development is a global issue (Sen, 1999).

6

The tendency towards a multipolar and “island‐like” world, where emerging countries advance and break old balances while new Towards a multipolar and “island-like” world inequalities create new transversal divisions to the North‐South distinction, exerts a strong impact on cooperation to development, which appears committed to a reorientation and repositioning exercise, while its very raison d’être is questioned.

However, next to the deep divergences on the relevance of cooperation, the international community nowadays manifests notably converging views in relation to the interdependence that links aid to other dimensions of international relations and internal politics. It is significant in this sense the nexus established at the wake of the century by the eighth Millennium Development Goal (MDG), linking aid to international commerce, external debt, and technology transfer. It is also noteworthy the “Commitment to Development Index” (CDI), formulated by the Center for Global Development and Foreign Affairs. In addition to the quantity and quality of aid, the CDI seeks to measure the relations that link it –in the various countries‐ to six other political sectors: commerce, external investment, migration flows, environment, security, and technology (Birdsall e Roodman 2003). The main issue that comes to light is that of coherence: aid cannot be an “independent variable” anymore, and development processes confirm the scant efficiency of “sectorial” policies and approaches.

SSC is the natural expression of collaboration and reciprocal interest between partner countries at the global, regional and national levels. SSC is a historical process of unique characteristics that reflects solidarity, adapts to local contexts and capacities, promotes results of mutual, win-win benefit, and horizontal associations.

Bogota Report 2010

However, the darkened horizon of aid also harbors meaningful signs of renovation and change: the emergence of new action modalities such as, firstly, South‐South cooperation (SSC), which underscores the leading role of the South in its own development; the advocacy of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs), which claims the contributions of civil society in the definition of aid policies; decentralized cooperation (DC), which creates networks within and between territories in the North and South. These three significantly enrich the agenda of a forward‐looking cooperation, going beyond mere aid.

b) A new agenda for changing scenarios The agenda established at the wake of our century (New York, 2000; Monterrey, 2002; Paris, 2005) identifies the Millennium Declaration with the MDG, aid effectiveness and development financing as its core issues. The first two benefit from a definite articulation, with its own set of indicators, objectives and timelines (2015 for the MDG and 2010 for Paris).

However, the Monterrey Consensus reaffirmed in Doha (2008) does not record precise commitments, although it recognizes the need to increase Official Development Assistance (ODA), design additional innovative financing modalities and reform the International Financing Institutions (IFI) – World Bank, International Monetary Fund, regional Banks‐ in order to ensure more transparency and more Southern participation.

Today, the transformations that have redefined the context at all levels and the assessment made of the process and achieved results require an agenda review. It has become necessary to redefine objectives, policies, instruments and the very same architecture of aid, as well as to emphasize on principles such as equity, sustainability and democracy (UNDP 2010a, UNRISD 2010), and introduce new approaches and indicators.

At the end of the first decade, the plurality of actors (public, private, mixed), the fragmentation of initiatives, the proliferation of approaches and the multiplication of expenditures, call for new mechanisms and better regulation in aid

7

management. The process has started, albeit it shows a hybrid and unequal profile; in more than a case, changes seem to lean towards the mere addition of levels and functions rather than towards a clear distancing from former practices.

The search of instruments capable of ensuring the operativeness of the accorded agenda is particularly fragile. As a matter of fact, the novel agreement of the international community around common principles and objectives has not been supported by a proportionally strong attention to those practices and procedures necessary to the implementation of the new approaches and outreach of the expected results; the “Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers” (PRSP), the main instrument expected to ensure MDG achievement, are but one example. As to national development programs aimed at fighting poverty, they present limitations in the most relevant dimensions: in the nature and extension of participation and the projection towards the territories. This hinders the sense of belonging which would legitimize them, just as it weakens the effectiveness and sustainability of the implemented processes (Brown, 2004; Molenaers, Renard 2006; World Bank, 2004; Fukuda‐Parr, 2008; Kamruzzaman, 2009).

The acknowledgement that ownership, coordination, active participation, demand driven cooperation and the reduction of aid cost have a clear political dimension confers an even greater importance to the process of singling out the most adequate instruments to achieve them. For these reasons, it is significant and relevant to introduce a reflection on the innovative practices brought about by decentralized cooperation in the debate on aid effectiveness and agenda review.

Among the most notable changes in the field of development cooperation in the last decade is the emergence of a brand new agency For a more inclusive governance of aid in the South: Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) have become cooperation agents in addition to aid recipients, seeking to situate themselves beyond the traditional logic of donor / beneficiary. The MICs have made important contributions in terms of resources, ideas and action strategies, in particular the so called CIVETS (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey and South‐Africa). At the end of 2010, the road towards a new global governance of aid, which until recently was exclusively situated in the North, has witnessed important processes of diversification and multiplicity of headquarters: G20, Development Cooperation Forum – sector of Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and Working Group on Aid Effectiveness and Donor Practices – sector of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). However, all of these bodies need to go further in acknowledging the South as a partner and colleague and the multiplicity and interdependence of development actors. In this respect, the DAC Working Group brings together representatives of OECD countries and multilateral organizations as well as of partner countries and non state actors (NSAs). Nonetheless, the UCLG (United Cities and Local Governments) is the only network of local governments which participates as an observer. The path has only begun but already points at the right direction: multilevel and multi‐actor governance that must incorporate the multiple promoters of development, i.e. local governments, multilateral organizations, local governments, parliaments and NSA, in the local‐national‐global spheres. Regional and municipal governments of the South and North are called to assume an important role in the process’ advancement. c) Aid effectiveness: Busan and beyond The document “Aid Effectiveness 2005‐2010: Progress in Implementing the Paris Declaration”, published by the OECD at the end of September 2011 (OECD, 2011), and “The Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Phase 2”, an independent examination carried out in May 2011 (Wood, Betts, Etta, Gayfer, Kabell, Ngwira, Sagasti, Samaranayake 2011), reach similar findings that confirm the tendencies of the 2006 and 2008 monitoring. The implementation of the PD has experienced significant advances, while only one of the 13 objectives for 2010 (coordination of technical assistance in support of capacity strengthening) has been reached (OECD 2011). Many more countries have participated in the 2011 monitoring than in 2008, which confirms the increasing interest in the issue of effectiveness and the debate’s vitality. Affected by the global 8

financial crisis, the ODA growth reduction forecasted by the OECD, the relative stability of remittances and the contraction of foreign direct investments (World Bank, 2011) all reinforce the importance of achieving aid effectiveness, which also requires a broader positioning.

Progress has been uneven, depending on the indicators and nature of the partner or donor, with the latter having shown considerable difficulty in fulfilling previous commitments. In some cases, results are quite dissimilar, such as with capacity strengthening: although the objective of coordinating technical cooperation has been reached, in many cases support remains “more determined by the offer than by the needs of developing countries” (OECD 2011).

Significantly, the less positive performances concern the crucial and central aspects of the international debate: aid fragmentation, its limited predictability, scarce transparency and weak accountability. However, on the whole, findings confirm the direct links between aid and development policies. Overall, it is safe to reiterate what was already noted in Accra, in 2008: “we are progressing, but not enough” (HLF3, 2008).

Just as in 2008, in 2011 we can also say that: “we are progressing, but not enough” HLF3 2008

Both evaluations, carried out in 2011, point towards the underrating of the political dimension of the Paris agreement, which led to prevalently technical readings and implementation modalities, and to the tendency OECD 2011 of considering the Declaration as a “model”, which curbed its capacity to adapt to different contexts, as the main obstacles to effectiveness.

The same indications transpire from the debate and preparatory work for the Busan IV High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF4). These, indeed, are complex issues. The fragility of the technocratic approach is most striking in the issue of the division of labor, where the political dimension is stronger. This is confirmed by the hurdles encountered in the “code of conduct on the division of labor” adopted in 2007 by the European Commission, a framework for the harmonization of aid which showcases the strength of the countries’ interest in the title itself, albeit in a context of regionalization processes (Commission of the European Communities 2007). The reduced flexibility of the action’s logic represents, as far as its concerned, an additional consequence to that abstract and standardized approach which, since the beginning, has weakened cooperation to development policies.

Aid is becoming increasingly fragmented, despite some initiatives that aim to address this challenge.

An important observation made by the two 2011 assessments concerns the commitment made in Accra, regarding a closer collaboration between governments, parliaments, local authorities and civil society organizations in the preparation, implementation, and follow up of national development plans and policies. The OECD 2011 evaluation indicates that this collaboration is still weak; in those countries where local governments participate in consultations aimed at defining poverty reduction strategies, their participation is often “mechanical and superficial”. The evaluation further suggests that participation in local planning processes should also be strengthened.

Both these findings and changing context require the Busan Forum to revisit the principles, strategies and indicators of the PD, in order to advance towards development effectiveness which more than one considers should be substituted to aid effectiveness. In our understanding, this does not mean that the importance of aid should be undermined, but rather that its true significance should be acknowledged. Although it is not determining, aid is still relevant, primarily because it facilitates dialogue between countries and territories, in a world where the geographical differentiation between the North and South is dwindling.

Aiming at feeding into to this challenge, what follows is a reflection on the contributions offered by a perspective based on the “territorial” approach. The analysis will be based on the practices of a cooperation approach which uses the local realm as a fundamental reference: decentralized cooperation. In the following section, special attention will be given to the 9

relationship between the local realm and cooperation to development, and more specifically, to the peculiarities of Decentralized Cooperation (DC). After presenting the innovative characteristics of the United Nations Development Program ART Initiative, the second part of the paper will further focus on DC, reflecting on how it is inserted in the multilateral framework. In particular, this section will dwell on UNDP/ART’s experience in developing operational instruments, with the understanding that this component, which is indispensable to implement principles and strategies, has so far represented one of the main weaknesses of the PD. The third part will ponder on the consultative process on aid effectiveness at the local level, promoted by UNDP through the Capacity Development Group within the Bureau for Development Policy (CDG/BDP), and by the ART Initiative in the operational dimension, to prepare the HLF4. This consultation has benefited from the active collaboration of a wide and varied range of actors: United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), Forum of Global Associations of Regions (FOGAR), the Andalusian Fund of Municipalities for International Solidarity (FAMSI, as per Spanish acronym), Fund of Local Authorities for Decentralized Cooperation and Sustainable Human Development (FELCOS as per Italian acronym), Hegoa – Institute of Studies on Development and International Cooperation, Observatory of Decentralized Cooperation EU‐LA (OCD, as per Spanish acronym) and countries such as Colombia, Ecuador, Italy, Senegal and Spain. The participation of many other actors has contributed to strengthening the whole process (see part six for the complete list of co‐organizers and participants). d) The galaxy of the local realm and decentralized cooperation In the eighties and nineties, development cooperation ‐both governmental and nongovernmental‐ supported various decentralization processes. Its contribution to deconcentration and decentralization per se, as well as to the design of new constitutional and legislative frameworks has been notable, mostly in the exit‐phases from very violent conflicts, such as in the Balkans. As well, its role in capacity development for local administrators and civil servants and the support it offered – mostly in tandem with NGOs‐, to democratic transitions and the creation of new territorial social and political actors is not to be underestimated. However, in more than one case, instead of a strengthening effect, the proliferation of initiatives with no proper articulation mechanisms has led to the atomization and segmentation of the territory; combined with low aid effectiveness, this has resulted in a lack of efficacy in development processes.

Decentralized Cooperation pioneers an important change in policies and intervention modalities, significantly swaying ongoing decentralized processes in various geopolitical areas. In its most innovative modality, that is, the territorial one, decentralized cooperation tends to position itself beyond the binary contradictions that have normally predominated development cooperation: governmental / nongovernmental ‐since dialogue and public‐private concertation constitute one of its strategic focal issues; horizontal/vertical –since relationships between actors from a similar administrative level are intertwined with relations between actors from different levels; local/national/global – since its establishment in a given territory is not self‐referential but rather seeks to connect with national and international policies; development / underdevelopment, ‐ since it is supported by an “alliance for reciprocal development” which also transcends another contraposition that has traditionally weakened cooperation policies: the “top‐down”, as opposed to “bottom‐up”, approach to development.

Therefore, DC offers a particularly relevant contribution to the emerging new “paradigm” of assistance, by introducing the following changes: a partners’ alliance replaces the old donor‐recipient relationship; flexibility and adaptability replace the traditional blueprint Towards a new aid paradigm model, usually indifferent to the existing differences between geopolitical areas, countries and regions; development as empowerment replaces relegating people to a passive role within change processes; capacity development replaces the mechanical transmission of models and knowledge; peer learning replaces training oriented by the vision and availability of the donor; the appraisal of local actors, in its various levels, replaces the affirmation of the State as the only and main actor 10

of development; the search for “reciprocal development” replaces the vision of development as path with predefined phases that concern a specific group of countries.

The support this novel logic of action offers to political‐administrative decentralization, democratic participation, active role of local communities, reorganization of health and educational systems, more equitable economic development, durable territorial processes, a political culture based on the appraisal of the historical heritage and gender policies, is aimed at strengthening the local realm, embracing its increasing “glocal” dimension. The local realm is now organized through networks that intertwine it to other local, and national and global levels: thereby, DC proves to be both effective and relevant.

Consequently, an approach that focuses on the local realm does not only constitute a resource that enhances the implementation of Why is it important to integrate the perspective of national policies and plans; it also represents a distinct entry point to the local realm? the dynamics of development and development cooperation. This in turn can increment the effectiveness and sustainability of territorial and national processes, precisely because the movement that stems from the local realm –that is, bottom‐up‐, does not question or negate the center, but alters it by integrating it and making its policies flexible and adapted to the diversity of local contexts, while at the same time interlinking itself to other local realms, hence contributing to enriching both the central and local levels with transnational substance.

11

2. THE LOCAL REALM IN THE UNDP / ART LABORATORY

a) ART, an initiative to innovate 1. Towards a new multilateralism

Within the United Nations System (UNS), UNDP/ART has proposed an innovative approach: flexible and multilevel structures, a wide spectrum of created participative spaces, planning strategies and approaches, prove particularly effective in implementing the principles and commitments of the XXI century development agenda. The attention towards operativeness and resulting practices, aimed at facilitating the implementation of objectives and strategies in the field, such as the MDG and sustainable human development, constitute UNDP/ART’s specific and important contribution, in a context where the international debate has concentrated more on the definition of objectives and indicators than on the mechanisms meant to enable an effective management of the assistance.

ART/UNDP framework program Ecuador Articulation layout

The Global Initiative ART –Articulation of Territorial and Thematic Cooperation Networks for Human Development2‐ was created in 2005 to promote, as its name indicates, the articulation of territorial actors and levels, to carry out joint actions aimed at an equitable and sustainable development. Its objective is to appraise the strategic role of local administrations, regions and the territories’ social and economic actors, in issues of decentralization, territorial development, governance, service management, MDG achievement and sustainable human development.

UNDP established the Initiative’s Coordination Office in its Geneva headquarters.

UNDP/ART supports national decentralization and deconcentration policies and their articulation with territorial development processes. It also favors harmonization in the field between different actors. It contributes to develop local capacities at various levels, supporting networks and alliances based on a relationship between peers, partners and colleagues no longer seen as “donors / beneficiaries”. Moreover, it facilitates the creation of local platforms, often incorporated in the regional and municipal plans, and promotes a multilevel articulation and a multi‐sectorial approach in sectors such as governance, environment and territory, local economic development, local health systems and

2

UNDP’s ART Global Initiative originated in multilateral human development framework programs carried out since 1989 under various names: PRODERE, SMALP, HEDIP, PDHL, PDHI, SEHD, ATLANTE, PRINT, PASARP, CITY TO CITY, APPI, UNIVERSITAS.

12

education, information technology, disaster preparedness and prevention, as well as post‐disaster rehabilitation. To this end, the Initiative establishes coordination systems and alliances with programs and organizations specialized in these thematic areas.

To carry out these functions in the countries that request it, UNDP/ART facilitates the activation of framework programs. They The value of the project / action are “framework” programs because they create an institutional, Projects / actions are aimed at creating, transforming programming, operational and administrative setting, organized in or consolidating instruments, norms and procedures ways that allow the various territorial, national and international that enhance and strengthen local development actors who operate at the local level (donor countries, UN agencies, processes set in motion by the country itself. From this perspective, local projects / actions have several national and regional governments, cities and local governments, purposes: actors of DC, associations, universities, organizations of the private sector and nongovernmental organizations) to promote or support - respond to needs prioritized by the population - be the product of joint coordination towards common territorial development processes in a coordinated and objectives complementary way. Initially defined only at the level of general - be a featured action objectives, thematic areas and methodologies, its specific - be an action that embodies support to processes - be a replicable practice objectives, operational plans and concrete actions are actually the - promote exchange of experiences and good practices result of a participatory planning that responds to the territories’ between local actors of the North and South around demands. When using them, each actor avails of an instrument that issues of common interest contributes to incrementing the sustainability and impact of its own initiatives, without having to sacrifice its identity and visibility. This is an efficient mechanism for the harmonization and alignment of aid to national and local priorities and strategies, which contributes to implementing the PD principles and achieving sustainable human development objectives. This strategy goes beyond the definition of “assistance”, since it generates positive effects for territories both from the North and South.

The use by various UNS agencies of these operational frameworks (such as in Uruguay, Mozambique and Albania) contributes to overcoming fragmentation, dispersion and internal parallelism, as recommended by “Delivering as One” (UN, 2006), reiterated recently on the occasion of the preparation for Rio+20 (Clark 2011), and requested, on a more general level, by the PD and Accra Agenda for Action. However, UNDP/ART does not intend to be the solution to the criticalities of aid management, but rather the proof that a system of coordination and strategic appraisal of the multiple actors who operate at the local The world needs a coherent and strong multilateral level, where multilateralism does have a relevant role, is indeed framework with the United Nations at its centre to possible.

Thereby, a new multilateralism emerges, characterized by a meet the challenges of development, humanitarian assistance and the environment in a globalizing territorial, participatory and integrated approach, a multilevel action in world. The UN needs to overcome its current support of territorial and inter‐territorial networks of exchange and fragmentation and to deliver as one. mutual learning. Projected externally and far from egocentrism, it UN 2006 contributes to promote flexibility, action continuity, cost‐economy and coordination, within the UNS and out of it.

In the 2006 – 2011 period various countries have requested UNDP/ART framework programs, which have shown their adaptability to the reality of different continents and their varied economic, cultural, political and religious contexts: in Africa: Gabon, Mauritania, Mozambique and Senegal; in Latin America: Bolivia, Central America, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Dominican Republic and Uruguay; in Asia: Indonesia and Sri Lanka; in the Balkans: Albania and Kosovo; in the Mediterranean: Lebanon, Morocco and Syria.

13

The strategic and methodological innovation shown by these articulation frameworks, strengthened by the assistance offered to DC actors in the election of partners and areas of intervention as well as in the implementation of methodologies and mechanisms for dialogue and concertation, allows framework programs to fulfill important actions. They support capacity development, demand‐driven cooperation, transparency and mutual responsibility. In fact, this innovation not only overcomes project‐based approaches by linking cooperation actions to medium and long term development processes, but also becomes an instrument to promote the active participation of actors and adaptability to changes in the intervention’s context. The characteristics that distinguish framework programs –territoriality, flexibility, integrality, open structure, multiple and multilevel participative spaces – from other programs, as defined in the methodological note on indicators in the Paris Declaration (indicator 9, Annex A, HLF 2005), represent in fact their added value: they enable alignment and harmonization without sacrificing the actors’ individual characteristics.

UNDP/ART’s support to the regional and municipal dynamics is reaffirmed and consolidated through the support that framework programs and the Geneva office offer to their internationalization. The Geneva office facilitates the international coordination of activities and assists in the implementation of framework programs. It promotes mutually enriching international collaborations (North‐South, South‐South and triangulations) which foster the systematic exchange of organizational and management good practices while stimulating innovation mainstreaming and capacity development.

Moreover, the office collaborates with various thematic initiatives and centers of excellence to promote relations between actors and networks, such as Associations of Local Economic Agencies, local governments, universities, research institutes and UN programs. This way, it contributes to creating organized multilevel dialogue modalities and permanent exchanges of experiences that face the common challenge of MDG localization and aid effectiveness. In short, UNDP/ART offers an important strategic and methodological contribution towards operativeness.

2. Decentralized Cooperation in the multilateral framework

Decentralized cooperation represents a new logic of action; however its implementation is not exempt of some of the limitations that have traditionally weakened cooperation to development. The fragmentation and sporadic nature of initiatives, parallelisms, and permeability to other parties’ interests, difficulties in monitoring and limited sustainability, are all present in the archipelago of DC and produce an ineffective assistance. Incorporating DC to the multilateral framework contributes to curb these weaknesses, favoring the actions’ continuity on the medium and long‐term, which in turn supports effective change processes.

The main characteristics of DC linked to the multilateral framework are: -

A multilateral agreement with the country that establishes a human development framework program in support of governance and integral local human development. The program then guides and supports the activities of the partner territories and facilitates the linkage and alignment of each activity to the local or regional development plans and national policies. It adopts an integral, process‐based approach, which acknowledges development as a multiple‐course process, where the identification of needs and resources, as well as possible solutions, ought to be a widely participative process spread over the medium and long‐term. Therefore, the proliferation of projects that only segment and simplify a territory’s social complexity and generate action modalities of little efficacy is rejected. This approach does not deny the usefulness of the project; however, it underscores the need to insert it in a development plan, as a guarantee of coherence and sustainability.

14

-

The understanding of the local realm as defined by the administrative divisions of each and every particular context. This territorial identification does not correspond to a predefined regional or municipal demarcation; it is rather the development process that determines the level in which the action is situated. On the other hand, the local realm, comprehended as the result of a decentralization process characterized by the connection between vertical and horizontal subsidiarity, uses the relationship between the local government and social‐economic actors as its main parameter. At the same time, the local realm is acknowledged as part of a wider articulation, municipality / province / region / national / global, which allows all levels to be engaging and Contributions of the multilateral framework to Decentralized Cooperation responsive in answering the citizens’ needs, even when these are not part of their respective prerogatives.

- foster higher recognition in the multilateral and bilateral fields - strengthen the capacities for dialogue and innovation - stimulate articulation, complementarity, synergies and common work with the different actors that operate in the field - strengthen the processes of monitoring, evaluation and devolution of information and results to the citizenry.

- facilitate instruments to measure the added value of decentralized cooperation

The association between territories as an enabling and participative process aimed at developing capacities and institutional strengthening through participatory planning instruments and peer training. Because they fall within the existing programming instruments in the countries – regional and municipal development plans‐, DC initiatives can contribute to the territories’ internationalization, in line with the cooperation logic that characterizes the relationship between partners.

The integration of the three sectors of sustainable human development in a common operational dimension, rooted on the territory’s priorities, not the donors’. This structure prevents the social, environmental and economic issues from being dealt with isolated projects which multiply the cost of aid and generate fragmentation instead of impact.

PNUD 2010b

-

Cooperation as a two‐way street; a process of activation, mobilization, channeling of the territories’ underlying resources, both in the South and North. Just as other networks, local economic development agencies constitute organizational modalities aimed at aggregating and activating existing potentialities, while the association relations that unite the territories of the North and South enrich the two‐way flows of know‐how. DC cooperation initiatives that have these characteristics represent laboratories for innovation in the different areas of human development, following an approach of reciprocal recognition and mutual learning (UNDP/ART 2011c).

-

Cooperation as dialogue for co‐development, characterized by the complex and difficult exercise of matching the vocations and interests of the North, South, and of the multiple and different actors who participate in this association relation. Because it links the commitment in favor of development in the South to the fight against bad‐development in the North, DC constitutes a strategic response to the problems of development as a global question, articulated within multiple options of directions and strategic policies.

Local administrators and civil servants, professionals of civil services, operators of volunteerism, NGOs, academics, social entrepreneurs, experts, as well as national governments and international organizations, each of them with their specific responsibilities within issues of common interest, interact in DC initiatives. Until now, international cooperation had only partially expressed this pluralism of actors, channeling it in parallel, even opposite roads. On the flipside, when linked to the multilateral framework, DC seeks the convergence and complementarity of a territory’s interests and vocations. The latter draw territories that share similar problems and development visions closer together, through multilevel articulations and a progressive and incremental approach. Decentralized cooperation thereby contributes to consolidate those “distant proximities”, mentioned in the literature on globalization (Rosenau 2003).

15

b) Instruments to increase effectiveness 3. Articulation of actors and levels: the spaces of a democratic local governance

The multiplicity and diversity of actors that share common objectives but act in an uncoordinated manner represent a striking aspect of the scenario that has characterized cooperation in the last years. Since their inception, UNPD/ART framework programs have shouldered the challenge of identifying and adopting instruments that promote articulations, hence contributing to effective, democratic and sustainable local governance, steered towards strengthening inclusive national governance.

ART/UNDP Ecuador Program Composition of the NCC National Institutions National Secretariat of Planning and Development (SENPLADES, as per Spanish acronym) with two sub-secretariats Technical Secretariat for International Cooperation (SETECI, as per Spanish acronym) with two representatives Associations of Decentralized Autonomous Governments Consortium of Provincial Councils of Ecuador (CONCOPE, as per Spanish acronym) with two representatives Ecuadorian Association of Municipalities (AME, as per Spanish acronym) with two representatives Ecuador’s National Council of Rural Parochial Juntas (CONAJUPARE, as per Spanish acronym) With two representatives Donors Spanish International Cooperation Agency for Development, (AECID) with three representatives United Nations Agencies United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (PNUD) United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)) UNDP/SETECI 2010

In the present and following sections, we will present the characteristics and functioning of the main programmatic instruments set in motion by UNDP/ART to achieve these objectives, owing to the support of ART’s various systemization works and experiences. Among others, it worth mentioning: UNDP/STECI (2010), “Effectiveness of international cooperation at the local level; “The added value of the ART framework program (2008‐ 2010)”, Quito; UNDP Ecuador (2010a), “The ART/UNDP framework Program Ecuador. Methodological Reflections and Progress 2008 – 2009”, Quito; UNDP Ecuador (2010b); “The Implementation of the ART Methodology in Latin America”, Quito; UNDP/ART (2011a); “Methodological Notes ART nbr.1. National Coordination Committee and Territorial Working Groups”, Quito; UNDP/ART (2011b); “Methodological Notes ART n.2, Local Programming Cycle. Instrument of alignment to territorial and national priorities”, Quito. To illustrate the most relevant experiences, we will particularly focus on two programs: ART/UNDP Ecuador and ART GOLD3 Morocco, which have been active for a few years now (Ecuador 2008 and Morocco 2007). Situated in different geopolitical areas, both programs operate in national contexts committed to decentralization processes in the framework of constitutional revisions (new constitutions: Ecuador, 2008 and Morocco, 2011). As well, both governments have pledged to implement the PD and the Accra Agenda for Action (for more information on these two programs, consult the corresponding documents in enclosed CD). Both framework programs have matured good practices in different fields, representing important elements for the current reflection on aid effectiveness. The creation of national and territorial spaces (at the intermediate and municipal levels) for the articulation of actors and complementarity of donors in relation to the country’s development policies constitutes one of the main instruments for operational harmonization, carried out and validated by UNDP/ART.

This instrument finds its legal frame in the document that precedes each and every framework program and is signed by the country’s government and UNDP. The document foresees the constitution of the “National Coordination Committee” (NCC), led by the central government. Depending on the country, this structure might be called NCC (term which will be used in this document), “National Steering Committee” (NSC), “National Piloting Committee” (NPC) or others (UNDP 2010).

3

GOLD, Governance and Local Development.

16

Beyond the various designations, it constitutes a space for consensual decision‐making, facilitates articulation between ministries that support the program and public and private actors, as well as dialogue among the national, local and international levels of aid governance.

ART GOLD Morocco Composition of the NCC Institutions and National Actors Ministry of Interior, with different Directorates; Ministry of External Relations and Cooperation; Ministry of Finance and Privatization; Ministry of Public Sector Modernization; Ministry of Territory, Water and Environmental Management; High Commissioner for the Plan; General Confederation of Moroccan Enterprises (CGEM, as per French acronym); National Agency for the Promotion of Employment and Competencies (ANAPEC, as per French acronym); Economic and Social Development Agency for the Northern Prefectures and Provinces of the Kingdom (APDN, as per French acronym); Economic and Social Development Agency for the Northern Prefectures and Provinces of L’Oriental (ADO, as per French acronym); Agency of Social Development, (ADS, as per French acronym); Hassan II Foundation for Moroccans Living Abroad; Universities (Mohamed V Souissi, Mohamed I Oujda, Mohamed Ben Abdellah Fès; Abdel Malek Esaadi Tanger; Foundation Orient-Occident; Célula INDH (National Initiative for Human Development); representatives of the Regional and Provincial Working Groups of the pilot regions Decentralized cooperation partners FAMSI – ACCD PACA, France -Champagne Ardennes - Région de Valence -FELCOS Umbria- Balearic islands, Province and municipality of Florence– Como – International NGOs: Save the children, CISS, Proyecto Solidario, Médicus Mundi Bilateral Cooperation Spanish, Italian, Belgian, Canadian, French cooperation and, GTZ, USAID UN Agencies United Nations Development Program (UNDP) ;UNICEF; UNFPA; Un Women; UNESCO; OMS. ART GOLD Morocco 2010

The NCC is composed by the representatives of the various ministries, territorial governments, bilateral cooperation, DC partners, UNDP and UN Agencies active in the country, as well as networks and civil society organizations. This formalized and inclusive interaction favors the ownership of the development processes by the various actors; moreover, in a large number of countries, it represents the only participation mechanism where territorial governments engage in a programmatic dialogue on national policies. On the other hand, any articulation process needs a national and international legal and administrative framework, in this case offered by the framework program and the Geneva UNDP/ART office. However it also needs a social articulation that enables at least basic forms of representation.

Criticalities within this last dimension endow those territorial spaces with an even greater importance, as in some contexts and for varying reasons, they constitute the common level where civil society organizations (CSO) are present. Therefore, the composition of the different NCCs actually reflects the level of social and political articulation that has been reached in the respective countries.

The dialogue promoted in the NCC is strengthened by the creation of part of the regional and municipal administrations, with the support of the framework program, of the Territorial Working Groups (TWGs). In this case as well, the designation of working groups might change depending on the context, keeping however the same functions of local and local‐national‐ international articulation. Another characteristic of the TWGs is that unlike NCCs, they do not constitute a structure of the framework program itself: they connect those cooperation actions interested in operating at the local level with territorial programming, or promote its startup altogether, hence strengthening local capacities and facilitating the alignment of international cooperation. Just as for NCCs, an important aspect of the TWG structure is the presence of a double decision‐making level –political and technical‐ as the foundation of its operativeness and democratic and functional double legitimacy, thereby leading to action effectiveness.

The TWGs are first constituted at the intermediate level, province / region / district, and led by the Regional Council. The Regional Working Groups (RWGs) or Provincial Working Groups (PWGs) implement the Local Planning Cycle (LPC) and contribute to organize the Program’s priority action areas, while also facilitating alignment of decentralized cooperation and more generally, of international cooperation. The Working Groups are composed of the regional or provincial government, de‐concentrated institutions of the State and the territory’s social and economic actors. In some contexts, depending on the characteristics of decentralization processes, co‐leadership

17

has been established (local government – representative of the central government in the territory).

The constitution of the Local Working Groups (LWGs) at the municipal level, where the political, institutional and technical conditions are met, completes the articulation strategy implemented by UNDP / ART and leads to the integration of municipal representatives in the intermediate Groups, hence contributing to strengthening them. LWGs find their cohesion and legitimacy in the identification and implementation of startup projects: small, flexible, aimed at responding to immediate priorities and creating trust relationships; in fact, this is the level where CSOs acquire their full importance.

When relevant, the NCCs and TWGs are also empowered to create “ad hoc WG”. Moreover, the NCC can invite representatives of other ministries, regional or municipal governments or non‐state actors to its meetings, depending on the issues tackled.

The articulation strategy shaped by these participative spaces is complex and circular; it aims to catalyze and appraise the territory’s existing potentialities, linking the local to the national and international spheres, at various levels (NCC, RWG, PWG and LWG). Characterized by deliberations and consensual, transparent decisions, this articulation strategy generates important processes of democratic ownership and mutual responsibility. The territorial, participative and integral approach shapes its peculiar identity, which also confirms its effectiveness at the governance, local development and national politics levels, in terms of increased pertinence and sustainability. This way, the UNDP/ART strategy contributes to fulfill the principles of the PD, creating an ideal relationship among them. By doing so it reveals an important capacity of “scaling up” and achieves greater influence and impact, particularly when TWGs start their institutionalization process, becoming groups directly integrated to local programming and its methodologies, as well as references for the central government’s action strategies. In this respect, the cases of Ecuador and Morocco are significant.

In Ecuador, the 2008 Constitution supports the decentralization process and grants the intermediate and local governments Ecuador (provinces, municipalities and rural parishes) exclusive competencies Incorporation of the territorial level in national in terms of international cooperation, with the concurrent and planning coordinating role of the central government. It also establishes that international cooperation should align its policies to national development plans and to existing plans at the subnational level. In this context, as mechanisms of strategic ownership for the territories’ demands, TWGs and LWGs have shown their validity by achieving significant progress in their institutionalization processes. Another articulation tool in the hands of framework programs is the “Document of Territorial Priorities”, which will be discussed in the following section. The latter has become a reference not only for both the Ecuadorian Agency of International Cooperation (AGECI, as per Spanish acronym) and the National Secretariat of Planning and Development (SENPLADES, as per Spanish acronym), but also for networks of DC interested in supporting territorial development plans. As described by the program itself, “the ART/UNDP Program supported the National Secretariat of Planning and Development in the definition of the territorial development strategy and the territorial management process.

The inclusion of the territorial dimension is an important innovation in updating the National Development Plan” (UNDP Ecuador 2010a: 84). Thus, the UNDP/ART territorial approach has been integrated in national planning; dialogue between the central government and local governments has been strengthened and zonal agendas have been recognized as an important instrument of local development (UNDP/SETECI 2001).

18

Active in four pilot regions, the ART GOLD Morocco program has followed a similar process to set in motion the institutionalization of Morocco Towards the creation of Regional Coordination the TWG, through the creation of “Regional Coordination Platforms of Platforms of International Cooperation, and International and Decentralized Cooperation”. These are meant to be extension of the ART methodology to other regions a space for concertation, harmonization and effective management of cooperation, geared to support regional development as the synthesis of municipal programming. These Platforms, institutionalized by the Regional Council and acknowledged by law, will have the function of supporting the local governments’ management of international cooperation, hence fulfilling an important role that so far no other institution has assumed. In this context, it is worth noting the decision of the “General Directorate of Local Collectivities” (DGCL as per French acronym) of the Ministry of Interior, to extend the UNDP/ART methodology at the municipality level and to other regions as well, in order to support them in fulfilling the competencies foreseen in the new constitution, mostly in terms of participatory planning (UNDP/ART GOLD Morocco 2010: 26). The commitment of the DGCL to financially contribute to the program’s activities is but another significant indicator of the strategy’s effectiveness.

4. Strategic participatory planning: carrying out the Paris Principles

The articulation process of donors through participatory, structured and permanent spaces is mostly propelled in the Local Planning Cycle, which is recurrent and equally participative.

In fact, TWGs constitute the pivot of the LPC’s operational structure, which adds the dimension of citizenry to its existing political and technical dimensions, promoted by the activation and direct integration of the territory. Therefore, the systematic and reciprocal validation of these two dimensions interacts with local know‐how, catalyzed and strengthened through training and capacity development initiatives, carried out since the very first phases Local Programming Cycle - stages of the LPC with the aim of generating concertation and convergence of interests and visions for the future among the various social and economic actors.

The strategic potential of the LPC lies in its particular and coherent synthesis of approaches that also defines framework programs; some of them, such as gender equality and Human Rights have in fact cross‐cutting dimensions.

UNDP/ART, 2011b 19

The main result of this participative territorial planning is the “Document of Territorial Priorities”. In this case as well, the name can vary depending on the context. Articulated around action guidelines and project ideas, the LPC constitutes the territory’s “presentation card”, a shared framework that allows DC, and more generally international cooperation as a whole (bilateral, multilateral and nongovernmental) to align its actions to local planning and national policies. The document is

“… an integrated instrument in the territory’s planning system, which contributes to facilitate the management and implementation of its development strategies” (UNDP / ART 2011b:22). In other words, the LPC is an instrument at the hands of the territory; it becomes a reference for those actors of international cooperation interested in operating at the local level, enabling them to harmonize and align their actions with ongoing processes. Concomitantly, due to the characteristics of its elaboration process, it represents an important device to strengthen the democratic sense of belonging. It is a public space for reflection and action, which generates transparency and mutual responsibility, while representing an important step towards managing for results, owing to its regular updating and the fact that it presents priorities “… which respond to the territories’ long term strategies. These are measurable, since they establish plans, budgets, objectives and indicators” (PNUD/ART 2011b: 24). Its institutionalization, together with that of the TWG and articulation framework proposed by the Program, constitutes the leading edge of the whole process.

The innovative initiative set in motion by UNDP / ART GOLD Morocco is of relevance, particularly in relation to the creation of a system of peer Peer evaluation for mutual learning evaluation in the specific case of municipalities. The aim of this instrument is to reflect on the planning process to improve its quality, systemize and capitalize on good practices, generate a process of “dissemination, sharing and exchange of competencies and experiences within each municipality, in a logic of solidarity and mutual sharing” (UNDP/GOLD Morocco 2011:6). The creation of “Groups of Peer Evaluation” and progress towards the harmonization of municipal planning systems are meant to offer a solid ground for the nascent “Réseau de Villes Stratégiques”.

In brief, inserted in national policies, the LPC ends up localizing them while articulating and strengthening the operativeness of local plans, contributing to their definition and offering a common diagnosis to cooperation actors in the field as well as a demand‐led joint programming. It also puts forward an evaluation of impact that is not limited to the assessment of specific projects, but rather takes in consideration the process as a whole. This way the LPC becomes another testimony of the feasibility of implementing a “win‐win” logic of action, where decentralization processes are strengthened, national policies acquire their foundations and international cooperation contributes to enhance governance and local development. Thus, aid effectiveness contributes to strengthen the effectiveness of development processes.

5. Territorial Associations for reciprocal development: the networks and the multilateral framework

The territorial and thematic networks that structure the territories and the relationships between them are differentiated by their more or less formalized character, the extent and depth of the exchanges they engage in as well as by their objectives; constituting the distinctive character of social relationships in an era of globalization. In a society where goods, knowledge and people flow continuously, which generates resistance and antagonisms, but also fluid and cooperative interdependencies such as the “Panama wasps” analyzed by Bauman (2007), DC networks prove to be relevant in a way that has not yet been sufficiently appreciated.

In this context, local development is increasingly the product of the capacity of local and networked systems to holistically appraise the territory, taking into consideration economic opportunities, physical resources and the human and social capital, thereby securing active participation in the ongoing processes of economic, social and political reorganization at the global level. It is in fact the networks those which generate this possibility because it is through them that the territory engages in dialogue with other territories and exchanges and compares ideas and practices, seizing its identity and innovation capacity potential. DC networks, by promoting the complementarity of actors through local yet also trans‐local alliances, represent a particular modality that favors this prominence. Acknowledging the DC peculiarities and contributions, UNDP/ART supports its consolidation by focusing on reinforcing the relationship between existing networks

20

instead of creating new networks for each substantive theme. UNDP/ART therefore seeks to credit the territories’ networks for generating an effective dialogue, exchange and capacity development, both in the South and North.

The case of the constitution of the “Réseau de Villes Strategiques” in Morocco confirms the operational contribution of the UNDP/ART Morocco strategy. It is quite significant in context such as Africa’s, where the Réseau de Villes Strategiques networks of local governments are an ongoing process, still in consolidation. The initiative started in 2011 and was directly linked to the participatory planning system carried out by the UNDP/ ART GOLD Morocco program at the local level. An important group of urban municipalities of more than 35.000 inhabitants in the Tangiers – Tetuan region (Tetuan, Martil, Oued Laou, Ksar El Kébir, Assilah, Larache, Chefchauen, Tanger, Fnideq, Mdiq and Ouazzane), joined efforts for “cooperating and networking in order to share experiences on issues of planning and management of local techniques and for mutual learning, by capitalizing on the good practices generated by the management of common issues linked to local governance (UNDP/ART GOLD Morocco, Réseau de Villes Strategiques, 2001). The network is emerging as an important player in regional development, owing to its links with other African and international networks, which confers these municipalities a stronger position than they would have separately. The framework program offers technical support to the network and to the “Peer Group Evaluation” ‐considered one of the pillars of the process‐ and facilitates relations with the DC network.

Moreover, the “Memorandum of Understanding” signed in September 2011 between the Ministry of Interior / DGCL of Morocco, the Ministry Morocco / Senegal/ Mauritania /Gabon of Decentralization and Local Collectivities of Senegal, the Ministry of A network of South-South local collectivities Interior of Mauritania, the Ministry of Economy, Commerce, Industry and Tourism of Gabon and UNDP, represents another important advance within the same strategy, aimed at favoring exchanges between local governments, capacity development and the creation or strengthening of territorial networks. The aim of the agreement is to “create a network of exchanges based on the existing know‐how in these four countries and on the demand for support to decentralization processes and international cooperation coordination” (UNDP/ ART GOLD Morocco, Directorate General of Local Collectivities, 2011). In this case, it is a South‐South network of local governments from four countries, promoted by their national governments; this emphasizes its distinctiveness and potential for positive impact on decentralization, deconcentration and strategic local planning processes, as well as on aid coordination, in strategically important areas such as the Maghreb and Southwest Africa.

One of the peculiar values of DC, which to date has been scarcely highlighted, is its capacity to establish a specific South‐South A South-South cooperation, in which the Global cooperation modality thanks to the territorial approach. This South acquires visibility and agency. cooperation involves the participation of areas from the global South, cross‐cutting the geographical distinction between the North and the South. In this way, DC confirms that it is one of the few cooperation modalities that perceive the new poverty maps and incorporate those areas of exclusion in the North, invisible to a simplifying look, to development processes. In these regional and municipal areas, the deepening of inequalities between regions and social groups, particularly high in the MICs, creates a particular marginalization. Indeed, it hightlights the importance of a cooperation strategy that promotes processes adapted to their specific conditions, thereby contributing to mitigate the fractures that weaken cohesion and the sustainability of national development.

The Coordination office of UNDP’s ART Initiative, in addition to promoting and supporting communication between DC networks, maintains constant dialogue and cooperates with various networks and alliances on specific issues of development assistance, such as the promotion of the consultative process on aid effectiveness, which will be presented in 21

the third part of this document. FAMSI’s decision to establish an office that operates as a UNDP/ART antenna is an example of this Territorial networks offices as UNDP/ART cooperation, which is endowed with structural depth. Similar antennas initiatives taken in Barcelona by the Observatory of Decentralized Cooperation – European Union and Latin America and the Barcelona Center for International Affairs (CIDOB, as per Spanish acronym), in Foligno by FELCOS, in Florence by the Province and the City Hall with the support of the Tuscan region and in Milan by the Milanese Provincial Fund for International Cooperation (FPMCI, as per Italian acronym) have allowed the joint opening of other UNDP/ART antennas, reinforcing the dialogue capacity with the territories. Such antennas will strengthen the relationship between the multilateral framework in the countries and the international municipality networks, while facilitating alliances between governments and the territories’ actors, with the aim of promoting a more equitable, sustainable and participative local development.

On the other hand, networks that identify themselves with the UNDP/ART methodologies and strategies and also use them, also Decentralized Cooperation reinforces inclusive contribute to create numerous articulation and coordination spaces in ownership in the North as well the North, between public and private actors (committees, groups, forums) that facilitate better coordination and have an impact on aid effectiveness. They therefore also strengthen local governance and produce an inclusive ownership of implemented development policies, in addition to mutual responsibility and attention to the initiatives’ harmonization and coherence.

This way, these networks reexamine the principle of ownership and extend it to donors as well, as part of the democratization of the aid dimension. This process in turn contributes to fulfill assumed pledges, while advancing towards the implementation of the coherence principle; in fact, its implementation has increased since 2005, but its usage presents strong criticalities. This way, DC networks support the path towards effectiveness, while simultaneously operating on both ends of the North‐South relationship, a prerequisite to achieve greater progress in this respect. At the same time, they also contribute to shed some light on another area of reflection which has so far rather been grey in the Busan preparatory debate, despite its importance.

6. Measuring effectiveness at the local level: the added value of the UNDP/ART instrument

Incorporating the local realm to the issue of aid effectiveness implies an articulation of the national scenario’s levels. This requires the introduction of new indicators that expand and redefine those formulated in 2005 and allow measuring effectiveness at the territorial level.

Acknowledging the importance of these new indicators, UNDP/ART has supported the design of an instrument to measure the added value of the strategies and methodologies characteristic of its framework programs. The instrument is the joint work of two universities: the Autonomous University of Barcelona and the Bocconi University of Milan. Taking as a reference the criteria established by the PD and the Accra Agenda for Action, the strategic lines of UNDP’s Capacity Development Group (CDG) and the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), and focusing on the implementation of the first three principles of the PD at the territorial level (ownership, alignment and harmonization), the new instrument suggests indicators that allow evaluating local development processes, and complement those formulated in 2005. Its structure adopts a two‐level analysis, “potentiation” and “advance”, with the aim of monitoring “what the framework program does” and then “the results” effectively reached. The instrument further operates within three informative levels – indexes, sub‐indexes and indicators –specifically designed to measure the implementation of the PD at the local level (in enclosed CD, see Del Rio O., Barbieri D. (2010a) “Instrument to measure the added value of the UNDP /

22

ART Initiative for Paris and Accra”, and Del Rio O., Barbieri D. (2010b) “Manual for the implementation of the instrument to measure the added value of the UNDP / ART Initiative for Paris and Accra”).

The new measuring instrument has been tested in the countries where ART framework programs are active, with the participation of representatives from various ministries as well as regional and muncipal governmetns and the territories’ social actors. It has also been presented and discussed in different international seminars, and has been first put to a test in the Ecuador UNDP / ART framework program. The study of a concrete case has allowed to evaluate the contribution of the multilateral framework of articulation among actors to aid effectiveness. The positive results that have been observed are presented in the box that concludes this section, in the synthesis carried out by the program itself (UNDP Ecuador, STECI 2010). On the other hand, the measurement that has taken place has confirmed both the added value of the articulation framework and the validity of the instrument used, which complements the range of operational tools accrued by UNDP / ART over the years. On a more general note, it has reaffirmed and strengthened the pertinence and value of the requests to incorporate the territorial approach to the aid effectiveness agenda. Moreover, bearing in mind the weight acquired by local development processes, as an instrument that allows monitoring them, it has gained a significance that once more trascends the sphere of aid effectiveness, highlighting its relevance, but also its relativity.

Lastly, to conclude, it is important to note that the presented articulation framework and instruments aimed at carrying out the PD Unlike a model: instruments “in fieri” to implement principles, propose action modalities committed to combine aid the principles of effective and efficient aid effectiveness to the efficacy of the implemented development processes. However, we are not suggesting that these instruments are a closed “model” that should be replicated; quite the opposite, we understand that their value is in being “in fieri”, improvable products of the UNDP / ART laboratory, committed to innovation and experimentation, in search of paths that are able to intertwine the normative to the operational dimension of action, hence transcending both the purely rhetorical speeches and the practices devoid of sustainability, which is one of the present’s main challenges.

23

UNDP/ ART Program Ecuador

Main contributions to aid effectiveness at the local level Contribution to donor harmonization The UNDP/ART framework program has contributed to the simplification of DC donors’ procedures, through the joint use of diagnosis, planning and evaluations. Of the 33 cooperation actors, common follow‐up and evaluation models have been achieved with 45% of them, and agreements for shared technical assistance have been reached with 54% of them.

There have also been contributions to the coordination, complementarity and establishment of a common framework among donors. Of the 33 cooperation actors, agreements for the use of common guidelines have been reached with 78% of them, while 81% of them carry out common projects.

In the beginning, the program had some difficulty to explicit activities and expected results aimed at harmonizing donors in its planning the indicators. This is why in the Report on the Added Value of the ART Initiative for Paris and Accra – Ecuador Country Program, recommended improving planning with the inclusion of the above elements and carrying out maps of cooperation actors in the territories.

Contribution to donors’ alignment with the partners’ agendas Agenda alignment is one of the main objectives of the operational structures around which the program’s activities are organized, namely the National Coordination Committee, in which 11 national‐level actors align their agendas. Sixty three percent of the NCC’s members are national actors; in three years, 18 agreements aligned to the partners’ agendas have been reached.

Six Provincial Working Groups, where a total of 217 actors at the territorial level align their agendas. In 100% of the territories, the program has aligned itself with local planning. Moreover, 100% of the projects implemented within the Program are carried out jointly by partners and donors.

Participation of international cooperation in the Local Programming Cycles facilitates aligning their agendas with that of partners. Fifty four percent of the 33 cooperation actors who participate in the Program have accompanied the LPC. Local civil society has participated in 100% of the LPC and 60% of Provincial Working Group meetings.

Contribution to ownership by partners Working Groups (WG) are spaces led by provincial / municipal governments.

The LPCs are processes led by provincial / municipal governments.

The program’s projects (23) are linked to local development plans and are co‐financed by sub‐national governments.

Because it uses HACT (Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers) in its work with national counterparts, the program ensures that in 100% of implemented projects at the territorial level, resources are incorporated to municipal or provincial budgets and national purchase systems.

Civil society has participated in both the WG and LPC. A process of WG institutionalization has been started in two territories.

At the national level a process of inclusion of the ART methodology mechanisms in the National Decentralized Participatory Planning System (SNDPP, as per Spanish acronym) has been initiated.

Source: UNDP / Ecuador Framework Program, 2011

24

3. THE ROAD TO BUSAN: INTERNATIONAL CONSULTATIVE PROCESS ON AID EFFECTIVENESS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

a) Objectives and phases The objective of this process is to provide a reflection and collect practical experience on the crucial role of sub‐national governments and stakeholders in governance processes, decentralization and deconcentration strategies and poverty reduction. It also aims to appraise the importance of actor complementarity in the field and coherence between the local, national and international levels, to overcome the challenges in achieving development results.

The main consultation sessions were held in: ‐

Barcelona, Spain (October 2010), in a consultation co‐organized by the Observatory for Decentralized Cooperation EU – LA and UNDP, which set the foundations for the discussion on aid effectiveness AE at the local level;

‐

Bilbao, Spain (November 2010), in a consultation co‐organized by Hegoa and UNDP, which deepened the debate on AE at the local level;

‐

Dakar, Senegal (February 2011), in a consultation co‐organized by the Government of Senegal and UNDP, in the context of the World Social Forum, which incorporated the Southern perspective;

‐

Medellin, Colombia (April 2011), in a consultation co‐organized by the Government of Colombia (Presidential Agency for Social Action and International Cooperation), the Agency of Cooperation and Investment of Medellin and the Metropolitan Area (ACI) and UNDP, where the key messages on AE at the local level were validated;

‐

Foligno, Italy (June 2011), in a consultation co‐organized by FELCOS Umbria and UNDP which completed the cycle adopting the key messages for Busan.

Participants to these events shared the proposed reflection, relating it to experiences and results from the field, matured in different geographical, economic, political‐cultural and religious context. They further identified and agreed on the conclusions that are summarized in this document. These messages seek to inform the HLF‐4 discussions and aim to represent a framework for the articulation of the post‐Busan development cooperation at the local level. b) General reflections In all of the events, participants stressed the importance of the active role of local and regional governments and stakeholders to deepen, democratize and decentralize the aid effectiveness’ (AE) agenda,4 accelerate MDG achievement, strengthen sustainable human development processes, design and implement decentralization policies, and promote local, democratic and inclusive governance,5 as shown by the concrete experiences of Nariño and Medellin in Colombia and of Azuay in Ecuador.

Other cases such as Ecuador and Morocco illustrated the efforts of ministries, local administrations and civil society to achieve the articulation of territorial processes with national strategies and policies. This is seen as one of the greatest

4

For a reflection on the importance of local and regional governments in the EA agenda, see: United Cities and Local Governments, 2009, Position Paper on Aid Effectiveness and Local Government, Barcelona; and Government of Catalonia, Position Paper: Decentralised Cooperation and Aid Effectiveness, Barcelona, 2009.

5 For a reflection on the AE agenda linked to decentralization and local governance, see: To Enhance Aid Effectiveness: Specific Guiding Principles for Enhancing Alignment and Harmonisation on Local Governance and Decentralisation that will apply to specific country contexts, Informal Development Partners Working Group on Local Governance and Decentralisation (DPWG‐LGD), adopted on December 17, 2009.

25

challenges for the countries’ ongoing decentralization and deconcentration processes as well as for the international cooperation on how to better support such processes. To respond to this challenge, the design and implementation of frameworks and instruments for enhanced operational and programmatic coordination between different levels of action (local, intermediate and national) has proven very appropriate.

The need to better articulate the action of the diversity of stakeholders engaged at the local level in a way that maximizes joint impact on development also appeared to be a priority. For that, articulation is required not only amongst stakeholders involved in local development processes, but also between the different levels of action of development (local, national and global), which are interdependent.

Several case studies revealed how multilateral organizations can accompany interested countries in the design or strengthening of frameworks and instruments to reinforce the complementarity between the various actors operating at the local level and the coherence between the local‐national‐global dimensions.6 Participants in the discussions stressed that consequently, in order to be more effective international cooperation initiatives operating at the local level should place their action in multi‐level articulation frameworks and respond to the organized demand of the territories, aligning to instruments of decentralization and deconcentration policies such as municipal and regional development plans. Moreover, the organized demand of the territory7 should be the result of a comprehensive formulation process, with broadest possible participation of the territory’s socioeconomic stakeholders, including traditionally marginalized groups.

In this sense, various experiences have shown the strategic potential of DC to enhance the quality of development processes through the active relationship between territories, systematic exchange and mutual learning on issues of common interest. As underscored by the city of Dakar and DC networks such as FAMSI and FELCOS, the DC potentiality can find in multi‐level governance frameworks the opportunity for systematic and far‐reaching exchanges of technical, technological, organizational and managerial innovations between territories from the South and the North, via North‐ South, South‐South and triangular cooperation, as illustrated by the case of the State of Paraná in Brazil with the Dominican Republic and El Salvador.

The Observatory for Decentralized Cooperation EU – LA and experiences such as Belo Horizonte (Brazil) and Rosario (Argentina) have underlined the crucial role of local governments in leading the design and management of local public cooperation policies, as part of long‐term local development strategies, with the international cooperation consequently placed at the service of local governments’ development policies and the citizenry’s welfare.

FOGAR has highlighted that in a context where inequalities between and within regions are increasing more than between countries, the sub‐national level acquires a decisive importance in mitigating these disparities, hence contributing to promote the sustainability of national development processes. It has become necessary to adopt a new aid model based on the “cooperation” of all actors, and involved in adopting coordination frameworks led by national governments.

Other experiences have showcased that the “dialogue between territories” generated by DC can be very effective in addressing complex and sensitive situations from the local level, such as in contexts of post‐war rehabilitation. In this sense, the experience of the Catalan Agency for Development Cooperation (ACCD, as per Catalan acronym), the Tuscany Region and the network "Enti Locali per la Pace" in Lebanon is highly relevant.

6

For examples of such frameworks, see: ART 4 Years 10 Results: Progress, Challenges and Perspectives – ART UNDP, Seville, 2009.

The concept of territory understood both as the physical space and the various actors present in that space.

7

26

More specifically, participants in the consultation identified a number of challenges and opportunities that should be addressed in the global AE debate and in the engineering of the post‐Busan development cooperation programs. c) Challenges Participants recognized that a number of challenges should be addressed in the global aid effectiveness debate for enhanced aid effectiveness at the local level, mainly: 1. Adopt new AE references, such as acknowledging the crucial role of decentralized cooperation, not as an additional source of funding, but as a democratization strategy, a pragmatic and innovative way of mobilization for human development and for continuous dialogue between territories on issues of common interest, such as migration, health, employment, human security, citizen’s rights, gender equality, environment and climate change.

2. Move from the original donor‐beneficiary logic and project‐based approach to a paradigm based on sustainable and durable horizontal partnerships between territories, rooted in equity, trust, common interests and long term relationships.

3. Link the active and inclusive participation of communities in the design of cooperation programs to the specific possibility of programming the available resources in the field, based on the priorities identified by the "dialogue between territories" and in the framework of local development plans.

4. Avoid multiplying the number of projects for each of the territory’s priorities. Instead, the various cooperation actors operating at the local level should respond to common and comprehensive diagnosis linked to public policy and proposed by the territory, reducing both the risk of fragmentation and the cost of aid.

5. Encourage coordination frameworks in the field for better harmonization of different international cooperation actors, which often pursue common objectives but operate with different schedules, technical approaches, administrative procedures and evaluation criteria.

6. Reinforce capacities of the different local and national stakeholders to organize the comprehensive and non‐sectorial demand of the territory in relation to the opportunities offered by the international cooperation.

7. Move from declarations of intention to specific targets and indicators, using instruments to measure the impact in terms of human development. d) Opportunities Participants stressed that within the changing development cooperation landscape, cooperation at the local level offers substantive opportunities to scale up efforts to reduce poverty, strengthen development opportunities and achieve the MDGs, namely: 1. A territorial approach to development, to better implement the AE principles and contribute to MDG achievement from the local level.

2. An inclusive ownership of development processes, ensuring the active participation of local and regional governments and CSOs in the development cycle and debate, both in the North and the South.

3. The articulation between the local‐national‐international dimensions via multilevel governance (multilaterals, bilateral cooperation, decentralized cooperation, parliaments, NGOs, foundations, private sector, migrant communities, academia).

4. The definition and implementation of new financial instruments aimed at local and regional administrations to locally manage funds (from national origin or international cooperation) in support of local and regional development plans.

5. The strengthening of accountability systems (domestic and mutual) taking advantage of the territorial frameworks’ proximity to the citizenry to build confidence and to facilitate participatory decision‐making, the evaluation of performance based on results, and the devolution of results to citizenry.

27

6. Sharing decentralized cooperation models of territorial organization for enhanced harmonization and effectiveness of development actions.

7. Raising awareness, through specific field practices, of the added value that the complementarity between decentralized cooperation networks and the multilateral framework represents in strengthening territorial development processes, as well as to face challenges derived from the preservation and equitable access to global public goods.

8. Promoting knowledge exchange and peer learning through the empowering partnership in the territory and between territories, in various forms of South‐South, North‐South, South‐North and triangular cooperation, facilitating the sharing and replication (adapted to each context) of good practices at the local level. e) Final reflections These are, synthesized, the core elements emerging from a discussion between actors from diverse backgrounds, providing guidance to envisage the design of the post‐Busan cooperation programs. Discussions have stated that, despite the additional efforts required to deepen the AE agenda, there are experiences and practices that reveal clear positive results.

These are linked to the development opportunities offered through DC and the complementarity amongst actors and different levels of action to maximize joint impact on territorial development processes and to improve the quality of decentralization and deconcentration processes.

Practical experiences and case studies demonstrate that in the changing landscape of development cooperation, the increasing multiplicity of actors can certainly lead to fragmentation but can also, through the diversity of competencies and development responses, lead to coordinated action, political coherence and successful multi‐level interventions. The interaction and cooperation between the multilateral framework, national and local governments and decentralized cooperation networks has the potential to better address medium and long term development processes and make aid more effective in achieving the MDGs and sustainable human development. It is thus fundamental to promote coherence between the interdependent local, national and global levels of development in the Busan debate and in the engineering of the post‐Busan cooperation programs.

28

4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPERATIVENESS BASED ON THE UNDP / ART EXPERIENCE

I.

Integrate the strategy and procedures of UNDP/ART framework programs to the methodological section of the Paris Declaration, as a peculiar and innovative modality to implement a program’s approach.

II.

Institutionalize national spaces open to the permanent participation of local governments, parliaments and NSA, as an instrument for dialogue and inclusive definition of national development policies.

III.

Institutionalize territorial spaces for participation, involving local governments, the central government’s decentralized institutions and social and economic actors, as an instrument for the democratic definition of development policies. These policies should actually foresee the participation of DC networks, and bilateral, multilateral and nongovernmental cooperation.

IV.

Institutionalize the national and territorial spaces of participation in the North as well, involving local and national governments and social and economic actors, as an instrument for the democratic definition of development policies and to ensure their enhanced effectiveness and coherence.

V.

Capitalize on the experience of the local programming cycle at the local level, within the national development policies, as an instrument to strengthen democratic ownership and aid’s alignment and harmonization.

VI.

Acknowledge that the territorial approach contributes to link aid effectiveness with the efficacy and sustainability of implemented development processes.

VII.

Credit the operational instruments tested by UNDP/ART as an important contribution to the implementation of the effectiveness principles and construction of a more effective and inclusive aid management.

VIII.

Acknowledge that Decentralized Cooperation –which includes the participation of the global South, that is, of those areas of particular poverty and transversal inequalities to the geographical North and South–, is a particular modality that enhances South‐South cooperation.

IX.

Move towards the post‐Busan phase adopting a co‐development vision, which characterizes decentralized cooperation and South‐South cooperation, and is based on the recognition of “common interests” in the North and South, and of development as a global issue.

29

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliographical references ABRAHAMSEN R. (2000), Disciplining Democracy: Development Discourse and Good Governance in Africa, London.

ART/PNUD (2009), ART 4 Años 10 Resultados: Avances, Retos y Perspectivas, Sevilla.

BIRDSALL N., ROODMAN D. (2003), The Commitment to the Development Index: A Scorecard of Rich Country Policies, Washington ‐ D.C.

BROWN D. (2004) “Participation in Poverty Reduction Strategies: Democracy Strengthened or Democracy Undermined?”, Hickey S., Mohan G. (eds.), Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation?, London.

CIUDADES Y GOBIERNOS LOCALES UNIDOS (2009), Documento de Orientación de CGLU sobre la Eficacia de la Ayuda al Desarrollo y los Gobiernos Locales, Barcelona.

CLARK H. (2011), Informal meeting of the Executive Board on Rio +20, New York.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (2001), Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. EU Code of Conduct on Division of Labour in Development Policy, Brussels, 28.2.2007, COM(2007) 72 final, http://eur‐ lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0072en01.pdf

DEL RIO O., BARBIERI D. (2010a), Instrumento de medición del valor añadido de la Iniciativa ART/PNUD para Paris y Accra, Barcelona.

DEL RIO O., BARBIERI D. (2010b), Manual para la aplicación del instrumento de medición del valor añadido de la Iniciativa ART/PNUD para Paris y Accra, Barcelona.

FELCOS (2006), Documento costitutivo, http://www.felcos.it/, (descargado 17‐10‐11).

FUKUDA‐PARR S. (2008), Are Internationally Agreed Development Goals (IADGs) Being Implemented in National Development Strategies and Aid Programmes? A Review of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and Development Cooperation Policy Statements, International Affairs Working Paper 2008‐6, July.

GENERALITAT DE CATALUNYA (2009), Documento de posicionamiento: la cooperación descentralizada y la eficacia de la ayuda, Barcelona.

INFORMAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS WORKING GROUP ON LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND DECENTRALISATION (DPWG‐LGD), Governance and Decentralisation that will apply to specific country contexts”, 2009.

KAMRUZZAMAN P. (2009), “Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and the Rhetoric of Participation”, Development in Practice, vol. 19, n.1, pp. 61 – 71.

MKANDAWIRE Th. (2007), “Istituzioni e governance”, Various Authors, Strategie di sviluppo e aiuto internazionale. Le proposte africane, Milano.

MOLENAERS N., R. RENARD (2006), Participation in PRSP processes Conditions for Pro Poor Effectiveness, Institute of Development Policy and Management, Belgium, Discussion Paper, January.

OECD (2011), Aid Effectiveness 2005‐10: Progress in Implementing the Paris Declaration, Paris.

PNUD (2010a), La verdadera riqueza de las naciones: Caminos al desarrollo humano, Nueva York.

PNUD (2010b), La iniciativa ART, Barcelona.

PNUD/ART (2011a), Cuaderno metodológico ART n. 1. Mecanismos de Concertación y Articulación de Actores y Niveles. Comité Nacional de Coordinación y Grupos de Trabajo Territoriales, Quito.

PNUD/ART (2011b), Cuaderno metodológico ART n. 2. Ciclo de programación local. Instrumento de alineación a las prioridades territoriales y nacionales, Quito.

30

PNUD/ART (2011c), Alianzas Estratégicas de la Iniciativa Global ART, http://www.art‐initiative.org/index.php?lang=3&p=mod_participants (descargado 19.10.11).

PNUD ECUADOR (2010a), El programa marco ART/PNUD Ecuador. Reflexiones metodológicas y avances 2008‐2009, Quito.

PNUD ECUADOR (2010b), La aplicación de la metodología ART en América Latina, Quito.

PNUD/GOLD MAROC (2010), Rapport annuel, Rabat.

PNUD/GOLD MAROC (2011), Compte rendu de l’atelier de planification pour l'accompagnement du processus d’évaluation entre homologues dans le cadre du suivi d’appui a la mise en œuvre des PCD, Rabat.

PNUD/GOLD MAROC (2011), RESEAU DE VILLES STRATEGIQUES, Compte Rendu de la réunion «Acte fondateur» du Réseau des Villes Stratégiques au niveau de la Région de Tanger‐Tétouan, Tétouan.

PNUD/GOLD MAROC, DIRECTION GENERAL DES COLLECTIVITES LOCALES (2011), Mémorandum d’accord de partenariat et de coopération sud‐sud entre le Ministère de l’Intérieur/DGCL du Maroc, le Ministère de la Décentralisation et des Collectivités Locales du Sénégal, le Ministère de l’Intérieur de la Mauritanie et le Ministère de l’Economie, du Commerce, de l’Industrie et du Tourisme du Gabon et le Programme des Nations Unies pour le Développement, Rabat.

PNUD/SETECI (2010 ), Eficacia de la cooperación internacional a nivel local. El valor añadido del Programa Marco ART/PNUD Ecuador (2008‐2010), Quito.

THE HIGH LEVEL EVENT ON SOUTH‐SOUTH CO‐OPERATION AND CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT (2010), Bogotá Statement. Towards Effective and Inclusive Development Partnerships, Bogota.

THE HIGH LEVEL FORUM ON AID EFFECTIVENESS (2005), The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness – Ownership, Harmonisation, Alignment, Results and Mutual Accountability, Paris.

THE THIRD HIGH LEVEL FORUM ON AID EFFECTIVENESS (2008), The Accra Agenda for Action, Accra.

ROSENAU J. N. (2003), Distant Proximities. Dynamics beyond Globalization, Princeton.

SASSEN S. (2007), A Sociology of Globalization, New York.

SEN A. (1999), Development as Freedom, Oxford.

TALEB N. N. (2007), The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, New York.

UNITED NATIONS (2006), Delivering as One. Report of the Secretary‐General’s High‐Level Panel, New York,

WOOD B., BETTS J., ETTA F., GAYFER J, KABELL D, NGWIRA N, SAGASTI F, SAMARANAYAKE M. ( 2011) The Evaluation of the Paris Declaration. Phase 2. Final Report, Copenhague.

WORLD BANK (2004), The Poverty Reduction Strategy Initiative. An Independent Evaluation of the World Bank’s Support Through 2003, Washington ‐ D.C. WORLD BANK (2009), WDR: Reshaping Economic Geography, Washington – D.C.

WORLD BANK (2011), Migration and Remittances. Fact book 2011. Second Edition, Washington DC. ZAKARIA F. (2003), The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, New York.

Documentation on the ART Initiative, compiled in enclosed CD DEL RIO O., BARBIERI D. (2010a), Instrumento de medición del valor añadido de la Iniciativa ART/PNUD para Paris y Accra, Barcelona.

DEL RIO O., BARBIERI D. (2010b), Manual para la aplicación del instrumento de medición del valor añadido de la Iniciativa ART/PNUD para Paris y Accra, Barcelona.

PNUD (2011), Prácticas e Innovaciones de los Programas ART en Materia de Desarrollo Económico Local. Políticas, Estrategias, Instrumentos, Ginebra.

PNUD/ART (2011), Cuaderno Metodológico ART Nº 1. Mecanismos de Concertación y Articulación de Actores y Niveles: Comité Nacional de Coordinación y Grupos de Trabajo Territoriales, Quito.

31

PNUD/ART (2011), Cuaderno Metodológico ART Nº2: Ciclo de Programación Local: Instrumento de Alineación a las Prioridades Territoriales y Nacionales, Quito.

PNUD Ecuador (2010), La Aplicación de la Metodología ART en América Latina, Quito.

PNUD Ecuador (2010), El Programa ART PNUD Ecuador. Reflexiones Metodológicas y Avances 2008‐2009, Quito.

PNUD/Maroc, Lignes Directrices en appui à la stratégie de la Région pour la Coopération Internationale, Region de Tanger – Tetouan, Morocco PNUD/SETECI (2010), Eficacia de la Cooperación Internacional a Nivel Local. El Valor Añadido del Programa Marco ART/PNUD Ecuador (2008‐2010), Quito.

UNDP (2011), ART Initiative Annual Report 2010, Geneva.

UNDP (2011), ART Initiative Risk Log, Geneva.

UNDP (2011), ART Initiative Project Document, Geneva.

UNDPD (2011), Outcome Document of the Consultative Process on Aid Effectiveness at the Local Level, Geneva.

UNDP (2011), Multi‐Practice Mission Report to Ecuador, New York.

UNIFEM ‐ MyDEL (2009), Mujeres y economías locales, territorios, saberes y poderes. Reconociendo las rutas del emprendimiento desde la geografía profunda de la América del Centro, Guatemala.

32

5. CO-ORGANIZERS AND PARTICIPANTS OF THE INTERANTIONAL CONSULTATIVE PROCESS

Co-organizers of the consultative process         

Agency for Cooperation and Investment, ACI Medellin Andalusian Fund of Municipalities for International Solidarity, FAMSI ‐ United Cities and Local Governments, UCLG Forum of Global Associations of Regions, FOGAR Presidential Agency for Social Action and International Cooperation, Colombia Ministry of Decentralized Cooperation, Senegal Local Authorities’ Fund for Decentralized Cooperation and Sustainable Human Development, FELCOS Umbria Institute of Development Studies and International Cooperation, HEGOA Observatory for Decentralized Cooperation European Union ‐ Latin America, ODC United Nations Development Programme, UNDP

Participants of the consultative process                              

    

Action Research for Co‐Development (ARCO), Italy Agency for Local Authorities Cooperation (ACEL), Italy Alternatives Foundation Arco Latino Association of Ecuadorian Municipalities (AME) Autonomous Government of Region of Oruro, Bolivia Association of Local Democracy Agencies Veneto (ALDA), Italy Association Pathologists without Borders, Italy Autonomous Province of Trento, Italy Autonomous University of Barcelona Barcelona Provincial Council Bureau in Support to Canadian Cooperation (BACDI), Senegal Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Embassy to Senegal Carretera Central Association (ARCI), Italy Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Handcraft and Agriculture (CCIAA), Italy Civil Society Actors Platform (PASCiB), Benin Complutense University of Madrid (ICEI), Spain Council for the Development and Integration of the South (CODESUL), Brazil Development Cooperation Interregional Observatory (OICS), Italy Economic and Social Research Institute of Puglia (IPRES), Italy Economic Development Agency of Ruhuna (RUEDA), Sri Lanka Enlaza Mundos Programme, Colombia European Foundation for North‐South Cooperation (FECONS) European Parliament Development Commission Family Compensation Fund of Antioquia (COMFAMA), Colombia Family Compensation Fund of Fenalco (COMFENALCO), Colombia German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ) Government of Andalusia, Spain Government of the Basque Country, Spain Ministry for Development Planning of Bolivia

                         

33

Government of Caldas, Colombia Government of Catalonia, Spain Government of César, Colombia Government of Cundinamarca, Colombia Regional Autonomy Directorate, National Development Planning Agency of Indonesia Government of Mexico City General Directorate for the Promotion of Rural Development, Mozambique Government of Nariño, Colombia Government of Quindío, Colombia Government of the Balearic Islands, Spain Government of the State of Río of Janeiro, Brazil Government of Tolima, Colombia Government of Valencia, Spain G.T‐FASS‐ COLOBANE, Senegal Health Agency of Tuscany Region (ASL8), Italy International Cooperation Association of Lodi (ALCI), Italy International Cooperation South ‐ South NGO (CISS), Italy International and Latin American Foundation for Administration and Public Policy, (FIIAPP), Spain Italian Farmers Confederation (CIA Umbria), Italy Center for International Strategic Studies (CEPEI) Colombia Local Authorities for Peace, Italy Lux‐Development ‐ Senegal MedCités Mediterranean Apiculture Forum, Italy Merloni Institute, Italy Metropolitan Institute of Technology (ITM), Colombia Ministry of Decentralization and Local Authorities, Senegal Ministry of Economic Development, Sri Lanka Ministry of Finances and Economy, Senegal Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGCS), Italy Municipalities Association of Umbria (ANCI), Italy

                                           



Municipalities Coordination for Peace (CO.CO.PA.) Municipal Council of Maputo, Mozambique Municipal Council of Nador, Morocco Municipality of Araboua, Morocco Municipality of Barcelona, Spain Municipality of Belo Horizonte, Brazil Municipality of Boghé, Mauritania Municipality of Bogotá, Colombia Municipality of Bologna, Italy Municipality of Buenos Aires, Argentina Municipality of Caldono, Colombia Municipality of Casablanca, Morocco Municipality of Chefchaouen, Morocco Municipality of Colonia, Uruguay Municipality of Florence, Italy Municipality of Foligno, Italy Municipality of Haret Hreik, Lebanon Municipality of Lauro de Freitas, Brazil Municipality of Medellin, Colombia Municipality of Moron, Argentina Municipality of Pasto, Colombia Municipality of Perugia, Italy Municipality of Rosario, Argentina Municipality of Siena, Italy Municipality of Spoleto, Italy Municipality of Temara, Morocco Municipality of Terni, Italy Municipality of Torino, Italy National Association of Local Authorities (ANCLM) Morocco National Federation of Departments, Colombia National Institute of City Planning (INU Umbria), Italy New Horizon, Senegal NGOs Association of Piemonte ‐ Casa dei Popoli, Italy OCO URBAL III Regional Office Bogota, Colombia Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development , OECD OXFAM, Italy Partnership for Policy and Effective Responsibility (PEPA), Senegal Poliedra Projects in Partnership Company (P3), Italy Provence‐Alpes‐Côte d'Azur Region (PACA), France Programme in Support to Microfinance Sectorial Policy (PALPS), Senegal Programme to Strengthen Local Authorities' Institutions and their Services (Pericles), Mauritania Provincial Government of Aousserd. Morocco Provincial Government of Esmeraldas, Ecuador Provincial Ministry of Economic Development, Southern Province of Sri Lanka

                                         

34

Provincial Fund of Milan for International Cooperation (FPMCI), Italy Province of Florence, Italy Province of Perugia, Italy Province of Pesaro and Urbino, Italy Province of Sassari, Italy Province of Terni, Italy Province of Torino, Italy Public Enterprises of Medellin (EPM), Colombia Red Cross Prevention and Relief Training Center (CEPAD), Colombia Region of Puglia, Italy Region of Umbria, Italy Regional Council of L'Oriental, Morocco Regional Council of Louga, Senegal Regional Council of Tanger‐Tetouan, Morocco Regional Development Agency of Diourbel, Senegal Research and Action Group (GRAPAD), Benin Restrepo Barco Foundation, Colombia School of Management, Finance and Technology (EAFIT), Colombia Senegalese Agency in support to decentralization and citizen initiative (ASADIC), Senegal Social Association ‐ L'Officina della Memoria (APS), Italy Social Watch, Benin Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces, (FEMP), Spain Task Team on South‐South Cooperation (TT‐SSC) Technical Secretariat for International Cooperation (SETECI), Ecuador Union of Associations of Local Authorities, Senegal Union of Municipalities of Dunnieh, Lebanon UN Millennium Campaign United Cities Italian Committee (CICU) ‐ UCLG United Nations Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL) University of Antioquia, Colombia University Bocconi Milan, Italy University Mohammed 1st of Oujda, Morocco University of Bologna, Italy University of Dakar, Senegal University of Florence, Italy University of Perugia, Italy University of Pisa, Italy University Oriental of Naples, Italy UNDP Virtual School Vice‐Ministry for Development Cooperation, El Salvador Water Right Foundation, Italy Western Africa Women Association (AFAO), Senegal Zinguinchor Council, Senegal

35

Author: Vanna Ianni, professor at the University of Naples L’Orientale Contact information: Giovanni Camilleri, ART Initiative Coordinator, Giovanni.camilleri@undp.org For more information: www.undp.org/ United Nations Development Programme One United Nations Plaza • New York, NY 10017 USA

36