Making Country Ownership a Reality - An NGO Perspective

volume 2, issue 3

July 12, 2007

Mercedes Mas de Xaxás and Carolyn Gibb Vogel

Country stakeholders – governments, parliamentarians and civil society – have always been challenged by a limited ability to influence decisions made at the international level. With international donors now seeking to move decision-making and ownership to the country level, we have a remarkable opportunity to establish a transparent, participatory and inclusive process. This is particularly critical to the SRHR community which, due to the often controversial nature of the work, requires institutionalized processes as well as strong, well-informed champions, to ensure that its concerns are adequately funded in development strategies.

Population Action International is dedicating a series of research commentaries to the examination of new trends in funding mechanisms for sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). This commentary is the second in the series, and builds on the September 2006 commentary, by exploring one of the key principles now being embraced by the donor community – that of country ownership. The authors do not intend to explore the issue of country ownership in depth here, but rather to identify key areas that could be the focus of new discussions and research within the SRHR community. The concept of country ownership, as outlined in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, is cited as a key tenet of aid effectiveness strategies embraced by large donors such as The World Bank in its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) processes, bilateral donors that are adopting direct budget support, and global funding mechanisms such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM).

How is Country Ownership Defined?

Most references to country ownership in the development assistance literature mention the concepts of national leadership, responsibility and participation. For example, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness of 2005 states that country ownership will be achieved when “partner countries exercise effective leadership over their development policies and strategies.”¹ The World Bank defines country ownership as the existence of “sufficient political support within a country to implement its development strategy.”  It also defines it as “demand driven by the country.”² The Millennium Challenge Account cites as one of its three core values to “place a country in the driver’s seat of its own development.”³ And section 4.1 of The European Consensus on Development, the instrument meant to guide the European Union’s development assistance efforts, indicates that “ownership and partnership” are among its common principles and that “The EU supports the broad participation of all stakeholders in countries’ development and encourages all parts of society to take part.”  (Section 4.3)

Country Ownership is More than Government Ownership

Governments often appear as the de facto targets of country ownership strategies. Civil society⁴ and other non-state actors are mentioned more marginally, in many cases, as stakeholders whose participation is supported and encouraged, but not “required” as an indispensable component of country ownership. However, country ownership cannot be defined only at the government level. Governments change and rarely do they adequately represent the views of the entire citizenship of a nation.   Moreover, there is a large body of literature showing that broader participation and public consultation result in better development policy and programs. Country ownership requires the active participation of non-state stakeholder groups, in particular, as is asserted in the Paris Declaration, civil society and the private sector (and, we would add, parliamentarians):   

“Partner countries commit to: Take the lead in co-ordinating aid at all levels in conjunction with other development resources in dialogue with donors and encouraging the participation of civil society and the private sector.”⁵

The challenge is to ensure that words such as these are effectively translated into action. The concept of country ownership must be moved from being part of a newly agreed policy framework into actual implementation of participatory mechanisms at the country level.

In this context, we suggest the following definition of country ownership: An institutionalized process that allows for the participation, as equal partners, of governments, non-state actors (such as civil society and the private sector), and parliamentarians, in the development, implementation and monitoring of national development plans. 

Making Country Ownership a Reality

Country ownership is critical to the success of new development assistance modalities. In turn, the full involvement and broad participation of civil society, parliamentarians and the private sector is critical to the success of country ownership.

To facilitate the full involvement so critical to country ownership, certain conditions must be present:

1.   A policy framework supportive of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)

A prerequisite for non governmental organizations (NGOs and other CSOs) to be equal development partners is the existence of a policy framework that recognizes their relevance, role and right to, for example, conduct independent activities (without the pre-approval of the government, including for the receipt of foreign funds); to meet and express opinions; to approve self-governance mechanisms, as well as to engage in advocacy and monitor the work of the government.

2. Existence of  institutional mechanisms for the broad participation of CSOs  in the development, implementation and monitoring of development plans 

Full participation of CSOs in all development processes must be institutionalized. It should not be needs-driven or ad-hoc. Rather, it should take place throughout the entire process, including during the policy development, implementation and monitoring phases. 

Stakeholders themselves cannot be token participants, but must truly reflect the constituents they are intended to represent. For example, civil society representatives at the table must include broader participation than national or international NGOs. CSOs have the responsibility to ensure that local and community-based groups, including representatives of vulnerable and marginalized populations, have a voice. Appropriate mechanisms - such as a transparent election process of representatives - should be in place.

3.  Investment in capacity building

After decades of donor dependency and donor-driven policies, country ownership cannot be expected to be realized without substantial investments in capacity building. All major stakeholders in the development process need to increase their capacity to make country ownership a reality. This paper focuses in particular on the capacity building needs of  country governments, including: government officials and civil servants; Members of Parliament, as part of the legislative branch of the state and the link between the government and the citizens; and civil society, including NGOs and community-based organizations. 

Key capacity building needs include:

· Understanding development assistance mechanisms, in particular country budget, expenditure and reporting processes;

· Developing country-specific performance and results-oriented indicators;

· Engaging in advocacy and watchdog activities (not only with the central government, but also with regional and local authorities);

· Monitoring implementation and setting up accountability mechanisms;

· Strengthening the role and autonomy of parliaments in policy development and monitoring;

· Creating effective and inclusive management structures;

· Developing and engaging in participatory mechanisms and processes at the national and regional levels; and

· Developing alliances and partnerships.

While some are more relevant to certain constituencies than others, all the above needs are applicable to the three groups of stakeholders identified earlier (governments, CSOs, and parliamentarians).

Capacity building cannot be effective without a sustained source of funding from both donors and country governments; the active engagement of recipients (not only as targets but also actors); flexibility to adjust to national and local conditions; and sufficient time to be able to achieve and demonstrate results.

4. Full information and transparency

The provision of relevant, timely and transparent information to all stakeholders about process and progress in a continuous manner is key to their meaningful participation. It remains difficult for NGOs and other non-state actors  to gain access to information during critical periods of decision-making.  Information often arrives too late and incomplete, particularly regarding funding levels, sources and channels.  Commitments to transparency made by donors and aid recipient countries are insufficient if they don’t include the systematic disclosure of financial information to CSOs and the general public.