Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
The millions of girls that are being educated,
the millions of children that are getting vaccines,
the thousands of civil society organisations that are being
strengthened
in that fight for human rights and in the fight against corruption should make us
proud about aid because this is what aid
is being used for. These are the results that aid is producing.
At the same time, the development financing landscape
is changing dramatically. Quotas are raising more
domestic resources through taxation. Private sector
is investing more and new donors are playing an increasing role.
So in this context does aid have a future?
Well, my answer is yes. The other question is
is that future going to be the same as in the past? My answer is
equally clear: No. In order to
remain relevant in this changing landscape
aid has got to become smarter. What does that mean in practice?
To me it means at least 3 things. It means
first of all, that it is going to be used where
it's most needed. In countries, areas,
to people that have less access
to other sources of funding. Secondly,
it's got to be used to strengthen countries'
own capacities to solve the problems so the lessons of
the Paris Declaration, of the Accra Agenda for Action,
and of Busan use country systems they
are still relevant. But thirdly it's got to be used
smarter to catalyze other sources of funding,
to help mobilize private funding, to help
increase taxation, to help use
remittances better for development.
and I think if we use aid smarter than
it will be possible to continue to convince taxpayers
in countries that are struggling at present
that aid is relevant also in the future.