Summary Of Expert Engagements On International Development Cooperation

download article

Introduction: why an expert track on international development cooperation?

In 2023, Member States decided to convene a Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4) to address new and emerging issues, including the urgent need to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and to reform the international financial architecture.

The Financing for Sustainable Development Office (FSDO), serving as the substantive secretariat for the Conference, launched several initiatives to strengthen the availability of the latest thinking, guidance and proposals on priority issues on the finance agenda, in support of negotiations. One element of such initiatives focused on convening experts from think tanks, civil society, academia, UN entities, international financial institutions, and private sector to consider key financing policy questions and identify reforms that could find consensus in a global agreement. International development cooperation is one of the action areas of the financing for development agenda on which such expert discussions were convened.

At a time of crisis for international development cooperation, ideas for resetting the system are not lacking. In the face of dwindling resources and increasing demands, and in an increasingly complex landscape, many experts, in both the Global South and the Global North, are advancing efforts to reshape a narrative for international development cooperation, rebuild trust, revitalise the effectiveness agenda, and rethink criteria that guide access to increasingly scarce resources. FSDO sought to facilitate a bridge between such ideas and efforts, and the negotiators in New York.

Expert engagements included two meetings (in September 2024 and March 2025) with over 40 representatives from think tanks, civil society, UN agencies and multilateral development banks to collectively reflect on big questions and identify recommendations that could be taken forward at FFD4. These were complemented by a seminar series with member states and other moments organized around key events of the FFD4 preparatory process in the Winter and Spring of 2025 aimed at providing a space for exchanges between experts and negotiators on emerging views and perspectives. This document summarises the key takeaways and recommendations emerging from all these engagements.

Key takeaways

1. A new narrative is needed to drive required transformations in international development cooperation

The lack of a clear rationale for international development cooperation was highlighted by many experts as a core issue to be addressed at FFD4, one that prevents a clear “causal story” to be articulated and weakens accountability. A value proposition is needed that resonates in today’s context of shifting political priorities, evolving roles and increasing complexity, and that can counter the current “scattergram approach” to development cooperation through which decreasing resources are being spread increasingly thin. Experts underlined the need to move beyond ODA and update paradigms, without negating the unique role that ODA continues to have. The imperative for development cooperation to be demand-led rather than donor-led was articulated by many and linked to the need to ensure that any new narrative must be conceived via an inclusive process, with full participation of representatives from recipient as well as donor countries. Against a backdrop of shifting political priorities and substantive aid budget cuts, one expert questioned which leaders in today’s political landscape could help actualize any such narrative shift.

2. Public investment remains crucial: in times of declining volumes, getting allocation right is increasingly important

Experts raised the need to continue to advocate for increasing volumes of development cooperation, even against a backdrop of decreasing aid volumes and shifting political priorities in many donor countries, highlighting the fact that there is a responsibility aspect to development cooperation which remains “even if there’s no money in the bank”. The focus should be on “much more and much better” development cooperation. Experts discussed how to incentivize increases in international development cooperation, noting the increasing pressure to leverage that multilateral development banks (MDBs) face and the corresponding decreasing levels of concessionality of their financing.

Some suggested that concessional resources should be ringfenced for vulnerable countries and global public goods, though recognizing that this may create a bias away from low-income countries. They highlighted that overall, improving the replenishment model of concessional finance windows at MDBs would enhance coherence and ultimately, availability of concessional finance. Others questioned whether the demand from developing countries is for cheaper finance, not necessarily ODA, and suggested to focus on enhancing allocative efficiencies in development finance, including to address a “missing middle” between ordinary and concessional resources at MDBs. Overall, the need to enhance coherence of the system, and to set norms for the allocation of concessional finance were deemed fundamental to ensure public investment at the national level remains a “first resort”.

3. The effectiveness agenda needs an honest reality check and a reboot

Fragmentation (both across development partners and within governments), donor- driven agendas, high levels of bureaucracy, and volatility are critical issues that make development cooperation particularly difficult to manage from a developing country perspective. Behavioural change is needed at the country level. Experts suggested to start from the identification of “global public standards” for international development cooperation and the revitalization of the effectiveness principles – to ensure their applicability across the increasing variety of development cooperation actors and delivery modalities.

The role of MDBs in facilitating better coordination and collaboration across the development cooperation system was noted, as was the need to ensure development partners work according to their comparative advantage and without overlooking the interconnections between sectors. In this regard, questions were raised on whether national or sectoral coordination mechanisms work best, with experts highlighting examples of successful sectoral approaches such as Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) while also acknowledging that this is a highly context-specific question and one for which a blueprint may be difficult to develop. Difficulties in working together across development partners were highlighted, especially in the context of triangular cooperation which was flagged as a potential way of countering cuts in aid by traditional donors. Ultimately, experts underlined the fundamental need to elevate the effectiveness agenda from a technical to a political agenda, and the need for the right “custodianship” to do so, suggesting the UN should play a stronger role as neutral ground for all actors to engage, without diminishing the role of other existing structures in monitoring progress.

4. It is time to turn theory into practice on country leadership

Acknowledging that countries are on different paths with different priorities, one expert noted that “aid should empower countries to chart their own course”. As such, country strategies or “national investment plans”, were highlighted as critical tools around which to convene donors, with experts also underlining the importance for developing countries to consider ODA and other sources of development cooperation in the articulation of such plans. In this regard, a member state from a small island developing state (SIDS) highlighted the importance of transparency from the recipient government perspective to ensure alignment of donor funding with national priorities.

Civil society experts stressed the importance of ensuring democratic country ownership, with all actors, not just governments, actively involved in shaping national priorities. Experts extensively discussed the role of development cooperation in enabling domestic revenue mobilization and supporting institutional building and systems strengthening. One practitioner noted that the sustainable development agenda had always been about systems strengthening, but such focus had been lost when ‘sustainable’ started to be interpreted more narrowly as ‘green’. Experts also discussed the role of different modalities of support that can enhance country ownership, including flexible funding mechanisms, core rather than earmarked funding, and budget support. On budget support, political issues related to donor visibility were raised to explain the relatively limited use of it by development partners, notwithstanding its demonstrated potential in a variety of country contexts, including post-conflict settings.

5. “The lack of a common understanding of development impact is a fundamental wrench in the system”

The lack of a common standard to measure impact in development finance has profound consequences. Experts noted that such a gap makes it impossible for the development cooperation system to work in the way it’s supposed to, and for actors to collaborate in the way they should: developing countries cannot construct a division of labour across development partners, and development partners cannot make the case for additional resources to their legislators. With this as the starting point, experts discussed the difficulties in seeking to establish common impact metrics across actors, notwithstanding the imperative of better focusing resources on the most impactful investments.

Some cautioned that the real gap is in reporting rather than measurement, highlighting the importance of increasing transparency of existing data on impact. Others argued that measurement is currently determined by donor requirements rather than country results frameworks, and suggested that the focus should be on identifying frameworks that can provide the necessary evidence while reducing transaction costs for recipient countries, a point which was also echoed by member states from developing countries. The difficulty of designing a single impact framework to be applicable across contexts and types of interventions was extensively discussed, as was the choice of specific metrics. Some experts suggested that poverty and inequality levels may be good proxies for development impact, but recognized the limited availability of good quality data on these and the difficulty in demonstrating causality.

Others suggested that a measure of “good complementarity to domestic resources” should be developed as a proxy for development impact, as development cooperation works best when it is aligned with, and can amplify, national efforts. Overall, experts converged on the fact that different metrics will be needed for different audiences and for different purposes – e.g. the impact data that is needed to enhance allocations may not be the same as the data needed to avoid budget cuts in donor countries.

6. How and where development cooperation is defined and measured matters

Experts discussed how the current measurement of ODA incentivizes spending via certain delivery modalities, while it should instead focus on providing a measure of donor effort. The fact that donors can report amounts that do not have actual spending implications as ODA (e.g., some private sector instruments) was highlighted as a reason to review current measurement standards and practices as well as related governance structures. Specific issues, such as the removal of concessionality as sole defining characteristic for ODA, were also raised as factors undermining the robustness of, and trust in, ODA statistics and the need to revisit these.

The respective roles of the OECD and the UN in setting parameters in international development cooperation were extensively discussed, with some experts suggesting that the Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) could be used as a more inclusive space to articulate a stricter definition of ODA. The role of targets in incentivizing meaningful measurement of volumes was also raised, with some experts arguing for more specific targets to drive ‘better aid’ and others stressing the need for these to complement, rather than replace, existing overarching targets such as the 0.7 ODA target. Overall, measurement issues were considered to mirror broader governance issues, with a sense that ongoing work by the UN Statistical Commission on SDG indicator 17.3.1 could provide an example of how to define metrics and enhance accountability within a universal platform, while relying on the strengths of different initiatives and organisations.

7. An evolving landscape requires evolving the global development cooperation architecture

With a broader range of actors involved in development cooperation and with attention shifting to the implementation of the FFD4 outcome, experts stressed the need to strengthen accountability systems for development cooperation, and in particular, the need to enhance dialogue and create a global governance structure that can “give a sense of unity to the whole system”. The overarching question that arose was how to enforce global public standards in international development cooperation today, across very different players – including traditional donors, South-South Cooperation providers, MDBs, international organisations, and philanthropies. Some experts questioned whether any of the existing structures, both within and outside the UN, are fit for purpose, and suggested the creation of new forums including to better coordinate sub-sets of actors. Others suggested that we should not start from scratch and that, as one expert put it, “we want to reform but we don’t want to destroy”, suggesting instead that any new architecture should build on the comparative advantages of existing structures. Legitimacy was identified as basic criteria for good governance; to ensure it, leadership by both development partners (of all types) and, critically, Global South countries would have to be fostered.

Emerging recommendations among diverse perspectives

1. On narrative

Discussions demonstrated the difficulties in attempting to conceive a single narrative for international development cooperation. While the urgent need to reset the rhetoric around development cooperation was agreed by all as basis for new momentum in the sector, views diverged on what the focus of such narrative should be and on the specific language to use. Some spotlighted poverty and inequality; others redistribution; some the justice framing, highlighting issues of structural transformation, reparations, and historical responsibilities; others the right to development; some geopolitical issues; some others the idea of developmental self-reliance.

Many questions were raised on the framing of mutual interest, including how to reconcile it with a needs-based and demand-driven rationale for aid, whether it would counter or support a global solidarity framing, and how it could exist alongside other rationales for aid while being used for new concepts such as Global Public Investment. The need to ultimately safeguard the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities underpinned a lot of the conversations, with one expert suggesting that a change in language may be required to do so. Another element of consensus was the need for evidence on impact – to be able to tell stories to tax payers, and to show results to Parliamentarians. Ultimately, a single narrative that resonates across all actors would be neither possible nor desirable. Noting that narratives set the context for political decisions, experts suggested that it’s time for an inclusive, legitimate process for dialogue on a new narrative, one that meaningfully engages all actors – including, critically, developing countries.

2. On allocation

Experts converged on the continued need for, and importance of, concessional finance, though views differed on the extent to which talking about increasing volumes is meaningful in the current context of limited and declining resources, or whether attention should instead be placed on enhancing the coherence and efficiency of the system. Ultimately, it was suggested that issues of justice and equity underpin the case for addressing both and call for the creation of a space to discuss allocation issues for concessional finance, including from a fairness perspective. Some suggested such a space should be the UN, recognizing the role of donor countries in incentivizing priorities at MDBs as well as the need for increasing accountability of these institutions to the entire UN membership.

Some concrete recommendations for Member States engaging in the FFD4 process included:

  • Allocating more money to MDBs, less to vertical funds, and accompanying any increases in funding with increasing focus on impact of such funding;

  • Encouraging MDBs to enhance coordination and to reduce transaction costs and barriers to access for developing countries;

  • Making better use of trust funds at MDBs to address the ‘missing middle’ between the terms of concessional and ordinary financing at MDBs.

3. On effectiveness

The need to revitalise the effectiveness agenda in a way that resonates with all actors now involved in development cooperation was an area of strong consensus among experts, and resonated with member states facing several practical obstacles in dealing with different development partners, each with their own priorities and requirements. Views diverged on the extent to which this can be achieved within existing governance structures and by relying on the existing principles of effective development cooperation. The pros and cons of revisiting existing principles were extensively discussed with some suggesting that existing principles are universal and attention should be focused on implementing them, while others noting that in practice they are not recognized by all actors. Ultimately, as one expert put it, the way forward could be "refreshing” existing principles through an inclusive process that can ensure more broad-based buy-in.

The following recommendations emerged as possible steps toward a revitalised effectiveness agenda:

  • Working toward the co-creation of common standards and norms for international development cooperation with all relevant actors;

  • Enhancing mutual accountability including through locally led peer review exercises as basis for renewed trust;

  • Strengthening the role of the UN in showcasing how implementation of principles could look like in practice in different contexts;

  • Revisiting the format and governance of follow-up on international development cooperation, including by considering the creation of a specific secretariat within the UN system that would collate evidence and reporting from the country level to monitor progress on enhancing the quality of development cooperation.

4. On country leadership

Country leadership is core to ensuring positive impact of development cooperation, this was a view shared by all experts. With strong consensus around the fact that in practice current incentives, aid delivery modalities and processes do not support strengthening country ownership and leadership in developing countries, experts agreed that international development cooperation should ultimately be used to enhance domestic resource mobilization, strengthen systems and build institutions. Notwithstanding what the narrative is, these are three areas which should be core to all international development cooperation interventions. Experts also suggested that budget support as a delivery modality can be used to serve these objectives across contexts.

5. On development impact

Discussions on development impact underlined that “measuring impact is difficult” and that this is a “take forward issue” on which more work needs to be done. The lack of a counterfactual will always be a challenge, and development impact is long-term and context-specific. Experts recommended to start from good practices, and to make use of existing global standards on aid that can accommodate impact reporting, such as IATI. Consensus around the need to rely on different measures of impact for different purposes translated in a recommendation to invest in different types of impact data depending on the audience and reporting purpose. Some experts highlighted the role that technology can play in impact data collection, and recommended to consider how this can support innovative ways to measure, and report on, impact.

6. On measurement

The key recommendation arising from discussions around the measurement of international development cooperation, and ODA in particular, was to rebuild trust in measurement efforts. Expert opinions differed on how best this could be achieved, with some suggesting to pursue a (re)definition of what counts as development cooperation, including ODA, in a universal space, such as the UN, and others highlighting the comparative advantages of existing forums like the OECD DAC in the area of ODA statistics. An emerging recommendation was to consider the definition of new ‘quality’ targets and/or more specific ‘quantity’ targets to complement existing ones and to refocus measurement efforts toward what may support improvements in development cooperation incentives and practices.

7. On global governance

While there was agreement on the need to reform the current international development cooperation architecture to make it more legitimate, inclusive, and to better reflect the state of play of today’s landscape, views diverged on the ‘how’. Recommendations included:

  • Strengthening the Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) at the UN to bring together all actors for norm-setting and knowledge exchanges;

  • Establishing a new, neutral, multilateral forum where all stakeholders can meaningfully engage;

  • Creating coordination forums for different actors, such as a Global South coordination forum, a G20-UN coordination forum or a permanent UN-MDB coordination mechanism1 ;

  • Pursuing a UN framework convention on international development cooperation as a way of addressing power asymmetries, fragmentation, and the need for a common accountability framework;

  • Creating an independent commission to make specific recommendations on how to best change the development cooperation system to be fit-for-purpose in today’s world.

What next?

The Sevilla Commitment, which was adopted at FFD4 in July 2025, provides a roadmap for addressing many of the challenges facing the development cooperation sector, and to reform the system to better serve developing countries’ evolving needs. It highlights commitments along the lines of many of the expert recommendations discussed above. The task is now to support implementation. Expert engagements will continue as part of the follow up to FFD4, to build a community of practice, shape research agendas, and ensure that all Member States have access to the thinking and evidence needed to advance progress against their commitments.