October 2021 Download the PDF here: We understand there is a general agreement among DAC Members to use ODA budgets to cover expenditures related to Covid-19 vaccines, whether initially these vaccines were purchased for domestic use or not, as well as general support for all Members to use the same methodology when valuing their vaccine donations and ensure comparability of reporting across the DAC membership. We appreciate the DAC’s efforts to consult with civil society organisations (CSOs) on these issues, notably the meeting with the DAC WP-Stat back in May 2021 and an expert workshop back in June 2021. In our previous letter (July 2021) we shared with DAC Members and the OECD-DAC STAT team that in the context of the unfolding pandemic in many developing countries, ODA has a vital and urgent role to play in providing sufficient Covid-19 vaccines dedicated for developing countries, which maximizes the rapid and full vaccination of their populations, including tests and Covid-19 treatments; supporting developing countries to shore up their health systems more generally; and supporting developing countries to strengthen their capacity to manufacture vaccines. To make sure this finance promotes the long-term development of those countries, this support must be provided through new and additional funds. We reminded the DAC community that tapping into existing ODA budgets diverts funds away from other vital humanitarian and development programmes. As we are aware the discussions are now currently around how to value each vaccine donation, we would like to share some reflections and recommendations on valuing vaccine dose donations. We look forward to further elaborating and exchanging on these points in the weeks to come, as the DAC makes progress in deliberating on these issues. General message: Vaccine inequality: According to the latest Joint COVAX Statement on Supply Forecast for 2021 and early 2022 the current global picture of access to Covid-19 vaccines is still unacceptable, with only 20% of people in low- and lower-middle-income countries having received a first dose of vaccine (4% in Sub-Saharan Africa), compared to 80% in high- and upper-middle income countries. This vaccine inequality is the result of some of the wealthiest countries failing to make Covid-19 vaccines a global public good—free of charge to the public, fairly distributed and based on the needs of the most vulnerable – and instead hoarding enough doses to vaccinate their own populations several times over. As some of these countries are now planning additional ‘booster’ doses for their populations, it is clear that this issue is unlikely to ease even as DAC Member countries reach full vaccination. This comes at intolerable health and economic cost for developing countries, where the death toll is on the rise, extreme poverty is skyrocketing for the first time in two decades, and economic and gender inequality are further widening. While development and humanitarian needs are immense and continue to grow, development finance is at risk of collapsing as the Covid-19 crisis unfolds, with all resources available to developing countries – domestic, international, public and private – under major stress. The OECD estimates that as a result of the crisis, the annual SDG financing gap could increase from $2.5 to $4.2 trillion. Vaccine dose reallocations are a drop in the ocean compared to needs, and should not undermine commitments towards sharing patents, confidential information and trade secrets, copyright, and industrial design rights as well as towards ensuring Partner countries’ access to concessional resources in line with internationally agreed targets. The global response cannot just be treated as a fundraising exercise where rich countries donate leftover vaccine doses to countries with less wealth or political heft. Governments must do more to regulate the power of pharmaceutical companies to hoard life-saving intellectual property in the name of profit-seeking. This means unlocking the technology through supporting a WTO TRIPS waiver, sharing the technology and know-how through CTap and investing now in regional vaccine hubs across the world to defeat this and future pandemics. That is why we are pushing for a People’s Vaccine that is free, fairly distributed, and fully accessible to all. Specific positions on issues of ODA-eligibility discussed at the OECD DAC on vaccine dose valuation For vaccine doses purchased with the intent of being donated to ODA-eligible countries, the DAC should develop strict ODA-eligibility criteria on dose valuation and principles for these dose sharings: Valuation/pricing: There is no market to redistribute the leftovers of vaccine doses, which makes it difficult to establish a market price. The DAC should set a reference price that would serve as a cap for the amount per dose that donors can report as ODA. The reference price should be transparent, as low as possible to ensure dose donations are not overvalued and avoid artificially inflating ODA budgets. Using the price at which donors bought the doses should not be an option, as high income countries overbought to protect their national interest, which raised the prices and worked against the interest of lower middle income countries (LMICs). We considered different options on how to best value Covid-19 vaccine donations and agreed the cap should be set at verifiable production cost, as it would be unfair for developing countries to pay for the difference between the production cost and the purchase cost thereby subsidising profits made by pharmaceutical companies. In a context of very limited transparency on costs, or limited agreement on what can/should be included in cost, and considering the study by the Imperial College in London which shows that the cost of production of new mRNA vaccines could be between 60 cents and $2 a dose, we believe DAC members shouldn’t go beyond a the price of $3 per dose. This would significantly limit the inflation of ODA but would still give donors some credit for their donations. Reporting that ensures transparency and accountability: It is critical that there is transparency and accountability in donors’ in-kind donations of COVID-19 vaccines, through providing quality and timely publicly available information. This can be supported through the creation of a new CRS purpose code, with advice given on reporting, such as on project descriptions and detailed disaggregation, to enable quality and standardised reporting. The OECD should work with DAC members, other reporters and the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) to ensure these updated reporting standards also lead to timely and robust submissions to the IATI platform. In addition, given the likely variability in the quality and types of vaccines counted as ODA, we believe the OECD should produce an annual report, within 3 months of the calendar year end, where DAC members and other reporters provide additional information, such as breakdowns of the doses shared, type, recipient, cost attributed to them and their expiration date. Shared principles/safeguards: the DAC should establish shared principles and safeguards for bilateral dose donations to be ODA-eligible, similarly to the principles for dose-sharing that apply to COVAX donations. Validity/timeliness: With the pandemic spiralling in many developing countries, dose-sharing needs to happen now to plug the significant vaccine supply gap they face caused by rich countries massively overbuying doses. DAC principles should also: Prevent donations of near-expired vaccines with specific guidance on timeframes. Guarantee supply allows for a timely second shot. Safe, effective, appropriate: prevent donations of poor quality or insufficiently efficacious vaccines (e.g. dose donations of a vaccine that is not efficacious to fight a specific Covid-19 variant in the partner countries’ context). The DAC could consider a netting-out rule to ensure vaccine donations that are delivered to developing countries but ultimately not used (because not appropriate or expired) are not reported as ODA (vaccines donated minus vaccines actually used). The DAC should closely monitor broader concerns related to in-kind aid: in-kind is often criticised because there has been evidence of this being used as a way to transfer unwanted goods to developing countries, or to tie their aid to the benefit of donor-based companies. If developing countries see their production capacities increase, these donations of doses produced in donor countries could be competing with locally produced doses. Last but not least, provision of vaccine doses are vital, but they need to go hand-in-hand with broader support to strengthen health systems and to ensure equitable roll-out of diagnostics and therapeutics. Endorsing CSOs: 1. ACEP - Associação para a Cooperação Entre os Povos, Portugal 2. Act Church of Sweden, Sweden 3. Aid Watch Canada, Canada 4. AKÜ – Estonian Roundtable for Development Cooperation, Estonia 5. Bond – The International Development Network, the United Kingdom 6. CNCD 11.11.11 – Centre National de Coopération au Développement, Belgium 7. COMMAT – Commonwealth Medical Trust, the United Kingdom 8. CRAM – Center for Research and Advocacy Manipur, India 9. Crosol – Croatian Platform for International Citizen Solidarity, Croatia 10. EILER – Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research, Philippines 11. Eurodad – European Network on Debt and Development, Europe 12. Global Health Advocates, France / EU 13. Global Responsibility – Austrian Platform, Austria 14. Ibon International, Global 15. JANIC - Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation, Japan 16. KANCO – Kenya AIDS NGOs Consortium, Kenya 17. KOO – Co-ordination Office of the Austrian Bishops‘ Conference for International Development and Mission, Austria 18. Kopin, Malta 19. Lithuanian NGDO Platform / Vystomojo Bendradarbiavimo Platforma, Lithuania 20. PIANGO – Pacific Islands Association of Non-Governmental Organisations, Pacific region 21. Reality of Aid, Global 22. Reality of Aid – Asia-Pacific, Asia and the Pacific 23. Results Canada, Canada 24. Results UK, the United Kingdom 25. Wemos, the Netherlands 26. 11.11.11, Belgium

Download the PDF here: July 2021 As some DAC donors are considering using their ODA budgets to cover expenditures related to Covid-19 vaccines, the work of the DAC is critical to ensure that ODA eligibility rules uphold ODA’s integrity and credibility, prevent an artificial inflation in ODA budgets, and avoid unduly valorising donor countries for a behaviour that exacerbated vaccine inequality in the first place. We appreciate the DAC’s efforts to consult with civil society organisations (CSOs) on these issues, including through a meeting with the DAC WP-Stat in May and an expert workshop in June. With this paper, we share our positions on ODA eligibility regarding in particular Covid-19 R&D; and vaccine dose donations. We look forward to further elaborating and exchanging on these points in the months to come, as the DAC makes progress in deliberating on these issues. Vaccine inequality. Access to Covid-19 vaccines has largely been determined by countries’ purchasing power, leaving the world’s poorest people out in the cold. Almost one in four people on average in high-income countries have received a Covid-19 vaccine; while in lowincome countries, it is one in more than 500, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). This vaccine inequality is the result of some of the wealthiest countries failing to make the vaccines a global public good—free of charge to the public, fairly distributed and based on need – and instead hoarding enough doses to vaccinate their own populations several times over. This comes at intolerable health and economic cost for developing countries, where the death toll is on the rise, extreme poverty is skyrocketing for the first time in two decades, and economic and gender inequality are further widening. While development and humanitarian needs are immense and continue to grow, development finance is at risk of collapsing as the COVID-19 crisis unfolds, with all resources available to developing countries – domestic, international, public and private – under major stress. The OECD estimates that as a result of the crisis, the annual SDG financing gap could increase from $2.5 to $4.2 trillion. In this context, ODA has a vital role to play in providing Covid-19 vaccines, tests and treatments to developing countries; supporting developing countries to shore up their health systems more generally; and supporting developing countries to strengthen their capacity to manufacture vaccines. However, this support must be provided through new and additional funds. Tapping into existing ODA budgets diverts funds away from other vital humanitarian and development programmes. This would be short-sighted, undo decade-long efforts to fight other deadly diseases, poverty and inequality, and push the international community even further off track in achieving the SDGs. In addition, the DAC must ensure that ODA-eligibility rules for activities related to Covid-19 vaccines uphold ODA’s integrity and purpose of promoting ‘economic development and welfare of developing countries’, avoid an artificial inflation in ODA budgets, and avoid unduly valorising donors for a behaviour that created and exacerbated a situation of vaccine inequality in the first place. In particular: Research for a vaccine, tests and treatments for COVID-19 should not be ODA-eligible, as it contributes to addressing a global challenge and benefits both developed and developing countries. The DAC must approach any exceptions to this blanket exclusion of research with much caution and on a case-by-case basis. Covid-19 vaccine doses that were initially purchased with donor use as the intent but ultimately donated to ODA-eligible countries should not count as ODA. Only vaccine dose donations to developing countries that were purchased with that donation as the intent can legitimately be counted as ODA. In this case, the DAC should set strict ODA-eligibility criteria on dose valuation and principles for dose sharing, to ensure the lowest costs possible and high quality standards. More generally, vaccine dose donations are welcome but they are a drop in the ocean compared to needs, and should not undermine commitments towards sharing patents, confidential information and trade secrets, copyright, and industrial design rights. The global response cannot be treated as a fundraising exercise where rich countries donate leftover, potentially less effective vaccines to countries with less wealth or political heft. Governments must do more to regulate the power of pharmaceutical companies to hoard life-saving intellectual property in the name of profit-seeking. This means unlocking the technology through supporting a WTO TRIPS waiver, sharing the technology and know-how through C-Tap and investing now in regional vaccine hubs across the world to defeat this and future pandemics. That is why we are pushing for a People’s Vaccine that is free, fairly distributed, and fully accessible to all. Endorsing CSOs: 1. 11.11.11 2. ACT Alliance 3. ActionAid 4. Act Church of Sweden 5. Aidwatch Canada 6. Africa Future Foundation 7. Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice (ANEEJ) 8. Alliance Sud 9. Bond 10. Civil Society Platform for Peacebuilding and Statebuilding (CSPPS) 11. CNCD 11.11.11 12. Coastal Development Partnership (CDP) 13. Cooperation Canada 14. Coordinadora de la Mujer 15. Coordination Sud 16. Cordaid 17. Estonian Roundtable for Development Cooperation 18. Eurodad 19. FIAN Sri Lanka 20. Global Responsibility – Austrian Platform for Development and Humanitarian Aid 21. Health GAP (Global Access Project) 22. IBON International 23. Initiative for Social and Economic Rights (ISER) 24. Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation (JANIC) 25. Korean Advocates for Global Health (KAGH) 26. Lithuanian National Non Governmental Development Cooperation Organisations’ Platform 27. Oxfam International 28. Plan International – Korea 29. Reality of Aid Network 30. Reality of Aid – Asia Pacific 31. Save the Children 32. SOMO- Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations 33. Sri Lanka Nature Group 34. Wemos

Download the PDF here: With this submission, civil society organisations[1] share their views and recommendations to feed into the work of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC)’s Temporary Working Group (TWG) on ODA-eligibility of migration related activities. These build on previous CSO contributions to discussions on the DAC’s reporting code on the Facilitation of safe, orderly, regular and responsible migration (15190)[2] and focus on the key areas the TWG has identified as particularly challenging when defining ODA-eligibility criteria, i.e. addressing the root causes of irregular migration; return and reintegration programmes; countering irregular migration; making financing conditional on migration control outcomes; and engaging with diaspora.[3]It also includes recommendations in terms of reporting and monitoring requirements. In the face of increasing interlinkages between ODA and migration policies on the part of some donors, we believe the DAC has a responsibility to ensure that ODA spent on migration-related programmes fully complies with the ODA definition and does no harm to the rights and safety of people on the move. In this regard, the work of the DAC Temporary Working Group on ODA and Migration (TWG) set up in 2020 is critical to develop clear and detailed ODA eligibility rules for migration-related expenditures. GENERAL CRITERIA To help determine the ODA-eligibility of any migration-related activity, we recommend the DAC to agree on a list of general criteria building on the following points: ● What purpose? Only activities whose primary objective is to promote the economic development and welfare of developing countries can qualify as ODA, as per the OECD’s official definition. We recommend to further clarify that ODA should be used exclusively for the advancement of the development objectives of developing countries, as stated in the 15190 purpose code,[4] and that ODA should not be used as a vehicle to promote providers’ migration interest, similarly to the DAC’s statement regarding security interests at its 2016 High Level Meeting.[5] ● Who benefits? In line with the ODA ineligibility of support to military actors and of military equipment and materials, all migration-related activities involving military actors, security services and border police or the militarization of borders should be excluded from ODA. ● Whose priorities? Activities must comply with the principle of democratic country ownership, which is a cornerstone of the development effectiveness agenda, to which DAC donors have committed. Only actions supporting the interest and capacity of developing countries can be counted as ODA, rather than actions which donor countries design and implement for their own interest. ● What conditions? Activities whose support is conditioned upon partner country cooperation on restricting mobility or on the acceptance of return of migrants should be excluded from ODA. Migration conditionality is transactional in nature and does not promote a global good. Given the high risk of human rights abuse in migration-related activities, donors should pay particular attention to human rights risks and ensure donor-backed projects assist and protect migrants and victims of trafficking and do not criminalize them. Human rights are international legal obligations on the part of all governments, as such they are not conditions, and should not be used to condition aid, except in extreme situations mandated by international human rights bodies. SUGGESTED LIST OF ODA-ELIGIBLE AND NON-ODA ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES Addressing the root causes of irregular migration We recommend avoiding the use of the expression “addressing the root causes of irregular migration” in DAC documents. The need for development cooperation to address a cause implies that the consequence – in this case migration – is negative for development. That is not a fact-based approach to migration. Researchers in the field of migration and development broadly agree that migration – regardless whether being qualified as regular or irregular – generally brings both positive and negative effects for the person migrating as well as for the places of origin, transit and destination. Further, this approach broadly fails to distinguish the status of migrants in countries of destination (often the donor countries) and countries of origin, where they are often still ‘regular’. This confusion invites projects which promote donors’ internal objectives, at the expense of the interest of developing countries. Specific ODA eligibility criteria are not necessary for activities aimed at “addressing root causes”. These are not a separate sector, but rather key development and humanitarian challenges such as conflicts, fragility, marginalisation, inequality and discrimination, food insecurity, environmental degradation and climate change. Actions to address them are already covered by the current ODA definition and eligibility criteria. The current DAC purpose code on Facilitation of safe, orderly, regular and responsible migration says: “Activities addressing the root causes of forced displacement and irregular migration should not be coded here, but under their relevant sector of intervention.” This implies that from a development perspective there is no need for specific eligibility criteria for costs aimed at “addressing root causes”. It should be made clear in the criteria that the purpose of development cooperation should never be limiting migration. ODA eligibility does not depend on whether drivers of migration - regardless if qualified as regular or irregular - are negative (such as conflict, poverty, inequality, climate and environmental change) or positive (such as the search for opportunities to study, work or join loved ones). ODA eligibility should be based on developing countries’ interest in improving good governance, increasing development, and promoting access to varied services in their countries - all activities which focus on development outcomes, be that by strengthening positive or preventing negative development outcomes of migration. Suggested list of ODA-eligible/non-eligible activities ODA-eligible activities: - As explained above, lists of eligible activities could include any variety of development activities where migration and development research has found evidence of causation between a migration-related activity and positive development outcomes. Migration-related activities aimed at and measured by their impact on the economic development and welfare of developing countries fall within the ODA eligibility criteria. - Activities to enhance developing countries’ capacity to incorporate a rights-based approach to a migration dimension within the design and implementation of their development strategies and other public policies; Non-ODA eligible activities: - Activities measured by their effect on limiting migration, such as interception of boats, patrols to prohibit travel (as well as providing the equipment or training for such activities) are ineligible costs. - A root cause is structural and distinct from immediate causes. The clarification of eligibility criteria should make clear that activities aimed at preventing migration from happening are not ODA eligible activities. Regardless of whether donors interpret counteracting immediate causes of migration as “addressing root causes”. Returns and reintegration While assistance for voluntary, safe and dignified return and reintegration for migrants living in a developing country and wanting to go back to their country of origin could be considered ODA-eligible, donors should never use ODA as a way to further externalise their own borders to developing countries, and the DAC should consider a set of criteria to mitigate this risk. Returns can take place in many different contexts and circumstances, which have significant impact on their classifications. Making a clear delineation between forced and voluntary returns can be challenging, but the IOM's definition of the voluntariness of the decision can be helpful, and is based on (a) freedom of choice, which is defined as the absence of physical or psychological pressure to enrol in an assisted voluntary return and reintegration (AVRR) programme; and (b) an informed decision, which requires the availability of timely, unbiased and reliable information upon which to base the decision.[6] Forced returns are negative events that do not support development goals, designed and executed to promote the returning country’s internal migration policies and laws. Further, some forced returns can put the returnees at risk, or result in secondary displacement and instability. At a minimum, it is critical that support for forced returns should never be reported as ODA. The existing reporting code 15190 allows for assistance to migrants voluntarily returning to their country of origin from another developing country, DAC rules must however mitigate the risk that some donors could use this to further externalise their borders to partner countries, which we strongly oppose. At a minimum, and in line with the language around “safe, informed and voluntary return”, it is essential to ensure aid is not being used to support returns from countries that do not fully implement the 1951 Refugee Convention, since this would not guarantee that the principle of non-refoulement is respected and could thus result in ODA being used to back violations of international law. To IOM, reintegration can be considered sustainable - and successful - when it achieves the psychosocial well-being and personal safety and security of the returnees, their social inclusion and stability within their communities in the country of origin, and their economic empowerment. Support for the reintegration of migrants voluntarily returning from one developing country to their country of origin could be ODA-eligible if it is used for programmes that directly benefit returnees, their communities and the society as a whole through an integrated and comprehensive approach. Such activities should be reported under the appropriate sector code (e.g. code 32130 for support to SMEs, or code 311 for support to agricultural activities), as according to the IOM and the European Commission, reintegration support is better when it is provided in a whole-of-government approach and not in one-time payments.[7] Cash assistance provided for the reintegration of migrants voluntarily returning from one developing country to another could be reported under the code 15190. As per DAC rules, costs related to refugees and migrants’ integration in donor countries are not ODA-eligible. While we understand that assistance provided for the voluntary return and reintegration of migrants from donor countries to developing countries is currently eligible under DAC rule and can be reported as in-donor refugee costs (IDRC), we reiterate our position expressed in 2017 when IDRC rules were revised that we believe such costs should not be ODA-eligible, as they pertain to donors’ own migration policies. Suggested list of ODA-eligible/non eligible activities ODA-eligible activities: (the examples below only apply to assistance to voluntary, safe and dignified returns and reintegration from one developing country to the country of origin) - Support to activities to assist voluntary, safe and dignified returns and reintegration from one developing country to the country of origin. - Support for reintegration programmes that are designed and implemented in a gender- and age-responsive manner and that reflect both the individual migrant and local community’s needs, that address the socio-cultural and economic vulnerabilities of the returnees and allow them to secure sustainable employment, and that are aligned with long-term structural development planning to maximise the benefits and the sustainability of the programmes in the country of origin. - Support for assessments of the returnees’ personal situation and identification of risks and needs arising from the return project, in particular when they take into account specific measures for target group categories, such as minors, women, people with disabilities, victims of human trafficking. - Support for the provision of awareness-raising campaigns providing counselling on voluntary return and reintegration programs' options in the host (developing) country and of actor-specific training programs (for the staff, law enforcement agencies, health care personnel) for systematic identification of vulnerable situations – especially in the case of victims of trafficking. - Support for ensuring a minimum period of pre-departure assistance and preparation in host (developing) countries considering the best interest and the needs of the voluntary returnees – especially in case of vulnerable situations - with information shared in a way that is reliable, up-to-date, and provided in a language comprehensible for the migrant. - In the return and reintegration process, support for the inclusion of the family, relatives, and communities more systematically as a way of fostering the sustainability of the programs. - Support for the development of appropriate mechanisms to strengthen and monitor the protection of fundamental rights of migrants in the whole process and grant legal status to migrants who cannot return to their country of origin. - Support for provision of post-arrival assistance, including, for instance, reception at the airport, safe accommodation, medical/psychosocial check-up and treatment and secondary transportation. Such support must include special provisions to accompany vulnerable and most marginalised categories – children, victims of trafficking, persons with disabilities – in the reintegration process, and ensure that migrant privacy is respected by putting in place strict safeguards for handling the personal data of programs’ beneficiaries, taking all reasonable and necessary precautions to preserve confidentiality. - Activities that improve reception and reintegration services with the view to enable countries of origin to benefit from the skills and assets migrants have acquired abroad. - Activities that provide reintegration support in the form of start-up grants, access to vocational training, or job placement. Reintegration grants should be allocated depending on the living standards of the country of return and the level of vulnerability of the returnees and should be flexible and provided through an integrated approach. - Support to facilitate the creation of structured network dialogues, fora, platforms to ensure that beneficiaries of the reintegration programs can share their experiences, provide information and re-build social cohesion in and within the local community. - Activities that ensure a multi-sector and comprehensive response in the reintegration programs, which aim at improving general living conditions in the country of origin, for instance, by including economic and educational opportunities, access to basic services, social support schemes through the implementation of local development policies and programmes. - Support to regional and local CSOs’ participation in coordination and information exchange and to enable a structured and transparent dialogue with them in order to facilitate their involvement in the design, implementation and monitoring of reintegration projects, raising awareness about the dangers of smuggling, benefits of regular migration, jobs opportunities abroad, and ensuring and monitoring the respect of the human rights and dignity of migrants and returnees. - Activities that aim to strengthen developing countries’ capacity to ensure birth registration for the prevention of statelessness. Non-ODA eligible activities: - Activities supporting forced returns. Returns are forced not only when there is the use of brutal force, but also when returns are made inherently coercive and when the environment is made hostile for migrants and asylum seekers. - Activities supporting returns from countries that do not recognise the principle of non-refoulement. This includes activities that facilitate the expedition of border procedure lacking tailored assessment of the asylum application and that facilitate collective expulsions and returns to a risk of serious human rights violations (in violation of the principle of non-refoulement). - Support for border management in donor countries. - Activities carried out with the intention of externalising donor country obligations under the international right to asylum, whether for forced or voluntary returns. - Activities that facilitate arbitrary detentions of migrants and asylum seekers lacking legal status to remain in the host country. - Support for developing mechanisms to ‘incentivise’ cooperation on return between the host and country of origin. - Activities that focus on border security and control measures with the aim to increase returns. - Activities that limit and/or deny access to legal remedies for migrants and asylum-seekers whose application has been rejected. Countering irregular migration (e.g. support for border management, fight against migrant smuggling and fight against trafficking in human beings) No fixed definition or universally accepted definition of “irregular migration” exists. It is used to describe cross-border movements of people without a regular permission to enter a country or a situation of people staying without – or overstaying the period of - valid visa or residence permit. Thus, the irregularity both in reference to people and movement relates directly to national border- and immigration policies, i.e. the absence of regular status or permission of entry. Changes in policies, regulations and laws can likewise impact people’s administrative and legal status, sometimes arbitrarily. While there is no single instrument or norm regulating state’s responsibilities towards migrants, all states have obligations towards migrants deriving from human rights conventions. Irregularity often renders people more at risk of violations of their rights. Structural factors such as a lack of regular pathways for migration and the deterrence policies of states force refugees and migrants into precarious situations and create particular vulnerabilities. The policy approach to irregular movements is increasingly securitized and aims at restricting and controlling mobility. The accompanying focus on strengthening border control measures along migratory routes and intensifying actions against migrant smuggling comes with a number of human rights concerns. Growing evidence indicates that anti-smuggling measures and hardening of borders unintendedly incentivise smugglers to use more precarious routes and contribute to increased vulnerabilities of those on the move. Secondly, the securitization of borders impedes regional mobility (e.g. cross-border trade). This is particularly problematic in regions where mobility is closely associated with access to livelihoods and development opportunities. An example of this is in West Africa, notably in ECOWAS, where promoting regional free movement of persons through regional and continental frameworks is key to the long-term development of West African countries. There is growing understanding among donors, developing countries and NGOs alike, that many developing countries have no interest in criminalising forms of migration or reducing the mobility of their own citizens. The efforts to stop irregular migration is motivated by donors’ domestic interests, and defined according to donors’ legal criteria of who may be considered ‘regular’ when arriving at their borders. Donors should not use ODA to promote their domestic migration policy objectives. As OECD DAC High Level Meeting Communiqué from February 2016 states “Development co-operation should not be used as a vehicle to promote the provider’s security interests”, the same is applicable when it comes to provider’s migration interests: Development co-operation should not be used as a vehicle to promote the provider’s migration interests. In regards to countering irregular migration, ODA should therefore not be distributed based on a potential future arrival in a donor country. We urge the OECD DAC secretariat to employ extreme caution when discussing irregular migration and to avoid using the term as a catch phrase to promote donors’ political interests. This is rarely in the interest of developing countries. ODA should never be used to illegalize, stigmatize or undermine the rights of refugees and migrants. This is incompatible with ODA’s central purpose of poverty reduction and may harm the very people it should be supporting. Focusing on countering and curtailing irregular migration as part of development cooperation entails not only the risk of diverting focus from development objectives, it is also potentially counterproductive to development outcomes. ODA should not be used to fund securitized border management-related projects and must always be guided by the “do no harm” principle. Suggested list of ODA-eligible/non-eligible activities ODA-eligible activities (all activities mentioned below refer to activities supported in developing countries, not in donor countries): - Activities supporting vulnerable refugees and all migrants and the protection of the rights and welfare of people on the move; - Activities that support the development and implementation of conducive legal frameworks for asylum and migration, including activities supporting the strengthening of the capacity of national asylum/Refugee Status Determination (RSD) systems; - Activities that support the alignment of national development and migration policies to comply with international law and protection standards (including support for the development of a national mobility plan compliant with international law); - Support for the development of strategies to respond to displacement; - Support for creation or enhancement of protection services for migrants, refugees and/or displaced persons; - Support for civil search and rescue operations; - Activities that support protection-sensitive border management capacities and promote and strengthen accountability of security actors; - Activities that aim to support and improve access to safe, legal and regular migration through enhanced capacity of relevant government institutions; - Activities that ensure border management policies do no harm to people whose livelihood depend on mobility, including support for effective implementation of the ECOWAS Free Movement of Persons’ Protocols and the ECOWAS Common Approach on Migration; - Activities that aim to support other interregional and intraregional free movement initiatives; - Activities that clearly align development aid with international law and commitments to tackle migrant smuggling and trafficking, affecting especially, women and girls, which ensure that victims of trafficking are assisted, protected and not criminalised; - Activities that support CSOs as crucial actors providing assistance and protection to displaced persons, migrants and returnees and monitoring adherence to protecting and promoting their rights; - Activities that support the provision of accurate information to migrants, including displaced persons, about their rights, risks and programmes available to them. - Activities that empower migrants, including female migrant workers and their communities, to uphold their rights. Non-ODA eligible activities: - Support to military or security-oriented border management equipment (vehicles) and infrastructure (wall, fences, etc.) at land or sea; - Deterrence measures evaluated against the extent to which they lead to a decrease in the number of people moving; - Activities that aim to and/or are measured by their ability to reduce the number of people migrating; - Support for legislative or policy change which diminishes mobility options, by criminalising travel along certain routes or in certain regions. - Activities that aim at blocking migration routes, and present a risk of resulting in declining economic opportunities for the local population and increase insecurity, e.g. by potentially undermining the legitimacy of state authorities; - Activities that directly or indirectly contribute to the interception, return and confinement of refugees and migrants in abusive circumstances, e.g. through equipment and training of coast guards and border patrols. Conditionality of financing to migration control outcomes (should a political focus on stemming migration and the conditionality of assistance be considered when assessing ODA-eligibility?) DAC members have made commitments to the development effectiveness agenda where they pledge to refrain from introducing conditionality with very particular exceptions. Throughout the development effectiveness high level meetings, civil society advocated to exclude all policy conditionality on international aid, given the mutual nature of development cooperation and the fact that there is no evidence from decades of policy conditionality by donors that it significantly affects partner country behaviour. Of course, transparent fiduciary conditions and mutual policy dialogue based on international human rights standards and commitments are of a different nature than donor-defined policy conditionality. In Paris and Accra, donors were slightly less clear than civil society on the issue of conditionality, but however one interprets the final documents from those meetings, donors promised to refrain from conditionality with the possible exception of a limited number of clear, transparent performance indicators based on the partner country's national development strategy.[8] This clearly applies to refraining from imposing policy conditions that primarily serve to further donors´ own foreign, economic, political or security interests. Activities should only be ODA-eligible where they benefit the interests of developing countries first and foremost and should clearly exclude projects meant to serve donor interests or conducted for “mutual benefit”. This is a core principle of development cooperation. With migration-related activities, the question of who benefits is particularly critical, given that there are important risks (and political pressures) for donors to instrumentalize aid in order to restrict the arrival of migrants at their borders, or to outsource their own migration policies to developing countries. The history of aid policy conditionality clearly demonstrates that such actions seldom result in positive outcomes for development.[9] The determination of whether policy conditions are being applied by donors should also take into account “informal arrangements” that have been negotiated outside formal agreements with partner countries on migration and beyond parliamentary scrutiny in both donor and partner countries. Aid provided alongside such informal arrangements are in effect conditioned by these arrangements. All policy discussions that determine appropriate activities in support of orderly, safe and regular migration must be transparent. Such policy discussions should also be informed by human rights standards, which are obligations on the part of all countries. Suggested list of ODA-eligible/non-eligible activities ODA-eligible activities: - Activities fulfilling the ODA definition and unconnected to any migration policy conditions, whether through negative or positive conditionality and whether through formal or informal agreements. Non ODA-eligible activities: - Activities whose support is - formally or informally - conditioned upon partner country cooperation on restricting mobility, enforcing stronger/securitized border management or taking back irregular migrants (through readmission agreements) Engaging with diaspora The continuing contribution of diaspora communities to their countries of origin as well as to their host countries is undeniable. Remittances from diaspora indeed have potential to boost local social and economic development in countries of origin, and support to maximize remittances, including by reducing their sending costs, can already be considered ODA-eligible under the current purpose code 24050 on “Remittance facilitation, promotion and optimisation”. It is important to highlight that the engagement with diaspora needs to have a multidimensional approach. COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences have raised, for example, the issues about diaspora engagement with humanitarian aid, including for transnational/global initiatives, the involvement of highly qualified staff, transfer of technology. Support to diaspora organisations based in developing countries and to their activities to improve the rights, welfare and economic opportunities of diaspora communities in developing countries can be ODA-eligible. However, support to diaspora organisations and migrant organisations based in donor countries should only be ODA-eligible when the activities are meant to support development or humanitarian programs in developing countries, but should not be ODA-eligible when they focus on migrants’ integration in the donor country (as these are activities that should be paid for by donors’ domestic budgets). Suggested list of ODA-eligible/non-eligible activities ODA-eligible activities: - Activities aimed to reduce the cost of remittances, in accordance with SDG 10. - Activities that aim to incentivize the use of remittances for local economic and social development in developing countries (as eligible under purpose code on remittance facilitation 24050); - Support for CSOs working on the rights and welfare of diaspora communities in developing countries, including marriage migrants, - Support for diaspora organisations in developing countries to represent their communities; - Support to diaspora organisations’ activities to support development programmes in developing countries; - Activities that aim to strengthen the capacity of diaspora organisations in developing countries and mechanisms for collaborative engagement between partner country governments and diaspora; - Activities that aim to strengthen the participation of diaspora organisations in developing countries in the design and implementation of DAC members’ development cooperation. Non-ODA eligible activities: - Engagement between DAC members and diaspora organisations in provider countries without a clear connection to development or humanitarian programmes in the country of origin. TRANSPARENCY, REPORTING, MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ● Creditor Reporting System reporting When reporting migration-related activities in the CRS, DAC donors should provide detailed information and links to relevant project documents. In particular, the project description should be clear about in which country the activities are undertaken, to avoid the inclusion of donor country-based activities or trade-offs between several countries based on their cooperation with donors’ conditions. ● DAC review of activities reported under code In 2018, the DAC committed to a review of activities reported under the code 15190. This review should give specific attention and scrutiny to projects focusing on capacity building for migration management, supporting integrated border and migration management, return and repatriation assistance, and awareness-raising to combat irregular migration, given particular risks attached to such projects. It should assess whether projects reported comply with the developmental objectives of ODA as well as Humanitarian Principles and Development Effectiveness principles. It should assess whether the reported activities are aligned with partner countries’ priorities, rather than with donors’, as the reporting code explicitly reminds that ‘Activities that pursue first and foremost providers’ interest are excluded from ODA’. It should also assess whether the partners chosen were the most appropriate and, in particular, whether partnerships with security actors complied with OECD DAC rules on the subject. The review should be made publicly available. ● Casebook on ODA and migration The DAC could also consider developing a casebook to further clarify ODA eligibility building on the conclusions of the review, and provide detailed examples of projects that are ODA-eligible and projects that are not. ● Including an analysis of migration-related programs in DAC peer reviews Given the high risks associated with this area, DAC peer reviews should include a focus on migration-related development policies and activities. This could include a particular attention to the issue of conditionality. [1] CSOs endorsing this submission are listed at the end of this paper. [2] Links to previous submissions sent to the DAC inJanuary 2018, inFebruary 2018, inJune 2018, inOctober 2019, and inJanuary 2021. [3] Key areas defined here: https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/collapsecontents/brief-dac-twg-migration.pdf [4]https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DCD/DAC/STAT(2018)23/REV3&docLanguage;=En [5] The DAC’s 2016 HLM Communiqué stated that ‘Development co-operation should not be used as a vehicle to promote the provider’s security interests.’https://www.oecd.org/dac/DAC-HLM-Communique-2016.pdf [6]https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/module_1.pdf [7] See https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/our_work/ODG/GCM/IOM-Thematic-Paper-Integrated- Approach-to-Reintegration.pdf and ‘Lessons learned’ section in https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/regional-return-and-reintegration-facility_en.pdf [8] See in particular the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (§16) and the Accra Agenda for Action (§25), https://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf [9]https://concordeurope.org/2021/05/06/setting-the-highest-standards-for-global-europe-implementation/ List of endorsing organisations 1. 11.11.11 2. ACT Alliance 3. ActionAid 4. Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice (ANEEJ) 5. Aidwatch Canada 6. Ambrela, Slovakian Platform for Development Organisations 7. Bond 8. Caritas 9. CNCD 11.11.11 10. Coastal Development Partnership (CDP) 11. Cooperation Canada 12. Cordaid 13. CROSOL – Croatian Platform for International Citizen Solidarity 14. Global Focus, Danish CSOs for Development Cooperation 15. Lithuanian National Non-Governmental Development Cooperation Organisations’ Platform 16. Oxfam International 17. Pacific Islands Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (PIANGO) 18. Reality of Aid 19. SLOGA, Slovenian NGDO platform for development, global education and humanitarian aid

DAC RECOMMENDATION ON ENABLING CIVIL SOCIETY Objective: Focus on research, development and monitoring of: ODA spending on enabling civil society and protecting civic space, and implementation of the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society, joined-up programming and the performance of implementing partners of the Enabling Civil Society Recommendation. ​ How we started​ ​ In 2017, the OECD Development Co-operation Directorate (DCD) established a work stream on civil society to provide guidance on DAC members’ support for and engagement with civil society, seeing that evidence from the Global Partnership monitoring, from CSOs’ reporting of their day-to-day experience, and from observers and experts worldwide points to the need for much greater individual and collective effort to promote and protect enabling environments for civil society so that this sector’s contribution to development can be maximised. This led to the publication of Development Assistance Committee Members and Civil Society in 2020, a study which identified how DAC members are supporting and engaging with civil society and CSOs in DAC member and partner countries. ​ To download a copy of the study, click the image below. The study found that DAC members have committed to providing and promoting enabling environments for civil society, including by ensuring that their work with civil society and the CSOs in it is effective. Despite this, however, evidence indicated that more must be done to provide and promote enabling environments. Around the world, legal and regulatory frameworks are being used to shrink civic space, limiting the possibilities for people to come together to improve lives. At the same time, the working group concluded that there are gaps in CSOs’ effectiveness and accountability. Donors, including members, struggle to appropriately leverage CSOs’ knowledge, capabilities and influential role as public advocates for sustainable development, and they struggle to offer effective support for CSOs. ​ The study thus recommended, among a number of action points, that the DAC, in consultation with CSOs, develop policies that address both the member’s objectives and ways of working with CSOs and civil society and contextual issues including civic space, and in the process integrate civil society considerations across policy realms other than development co-operation. Photo credits: (left) Julien DANIEL / OECD, (right) OECD-OCDE/Victor Tonelli Civil society's role in policy development ​ ​ Civil society, through the members of the DAC-CSO Reference Group, maintained its advocacy and monitoring of the development of a policy instrument to enable civil society. ​ On October 2020, the DAC-CSO Reference Group forwarded its comments to the draft DAC document on civil society enabling environment, helping shape the definitions of civil society, CSOs and other actors, civic space, and what an enabling environment for members entail. It since continued to advocate for a policy instrument in the form of a Recommendation, in order to effectively implement policies to promote civil society participation and protect civic space. It reiterated these calls in May 2021 in the form of joint comments on the draft DAC policy instrument which was then circulated for consultation, and in June 2021 through a letter to the Chair and members of the DAC urging the adoption of the instrument as a Recommendation. ​ The DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society ​ The DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance was adopted by the DAC on 6 July, 2021, with unanimous approval from its members. The DAC Recommendation aims to support DAC members and other development co-operation and humanitarian assistance providers to enhance how they address civic space and work with civil society actors, while underscoring that civil society actors must also take action to enhance their effectiveness, transparency and accountability. ​ To download a copy of the Recommendation, click the image below. ​ ​ Moving forward with enabling civil society The DAC-CSO Reference Group has formed the thematic working group on the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society on September 2021, to monitor ODA spending on enabling civil society and protecting civic space, the implementation of the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society, joined-up programming and the performance of implementing partners of the Enabling Civil Society Recommendation. The first meeting of the Working Group took place in October 2020, with meetings to be held regularly every month. ​ In terms of immediate actions, the Working Group aims to: socialize the Recommendation, its importance and various opportunities, with a wide range of CSOs and other members of civil society; hold dialogues with relevant focal points in donor country governments to discuss the implementation of the Recommendation, highlighting areas of concern for national CSOs in current practices of the donor and the commitments made in the Recommendation (e.g. on program funding vs restrictive contracting); collate information onand release short reports on CSO engagements with donors on the Recommendation; and establish a working relationship on implementation of the Recommendation DAC Community of Practice on CSOs. ​ Document Directory ​ Keep updated on developments on the work DAC-CSO Reference Group's thematic working group on the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society alongside the OECD-DAC and download documents here: October 2021 ICNL - What Can Donor Countries Do to Expand Civic Space? https://21a29bf8-528b-4043-b9dc-caa23e5a1907.usrfiles.com/ugd/21a29b_c408157cf93240918490f6b0c108c22c.pdf October 2020 CSO Reference Group comments to the draft DAC document on civil society enabling environment https://21a29bf8-528b-4043-b9dc-caa23e5a1907.usrfiles.com/ugd/21a29b_9938249d92bc4ea0a7c4dcb40857f308.pdf August 2021 Short Unofficial Summary of the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society and Key Opportunities for Civil Society https://21a29bf8-528b-4043-b9dc-caa23e5a1907.usrfiles.com/ugd/21a29b_b8a831060088408898394a947a175c3b.pdf June 2021 Letter to the Chair and Members of the DAC with regard to Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society https://21a29bf8-528b-4043-b9dc-caa23e5a1907.usrfiles.com/ugd/21a29b_2901d0673fe048cf97bca517da2128ed.pdf May 2021 CSO comments on the draft DAC Policy Instrument on Enabling Civil Society https://download-files.wixmp.com/ugd/21a29b_08a3d3e677a9436db47970a519902273.pdf?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJ1cm46YXBwOmU2NjYzMGU3MTRmMDQ5MGFhZWExZjE0OWIzYjY5ZTMyIiwic3ViIjoidXJuOmFwcDplNjY2MzBlNzE0ZjA0OTBhYWVhMWYxNDliM2I2OWUzMiIsImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTpmaWxlLmRvd25sb2FkIl0sImlhdCI6MTYzMzY4MDM5MywiZXhwIjoxNjMzNzE2NDAzLCJqdGkiOiJhMWYzODc0MGU3ZDEiLCJvYmoiOltbeyJwYXRoIjoiL3VnZC8yMWEyOWJfMDhhM2QzZTY3N2E5NDM2ZGI0Nzk3MGE1MTk5MDIyNzMucGRmIn1dXSwiYXR0YWNobWVudCI6eyJmaWxlbmFtZSI6IkNTTyBDb21tZW50cyBvbiB0aGUgRHJhZnQgREFDIFBvbGljeSBJbnN0cnVtZW50IG9uIEVuYWJsaW5nIENpdmlsIFNvY2lldHkucGRmIn19.-1OzJTLGkkQbEnGJMjp-YvsWE7H_lsGjRTPxFE_jR4U ​ Join us! ​ If you or your organization is interested in the work to enable civil society and protect civic space, and wish to contribute to the Working Group's efforts, you may contact Brian Tomlinson of AidWatch Canada at ([email protected] ) or subscribe and send a message through our website. Out of gallery ​ Articles and Works from our Members and Partners

GET IN TOUCH WITH DAC-CSO REFERENCE GROUP Submit Thanks for submitting!

DAC-CSO REFERENCE GROUP Promoting more and more effective aid and development finance WHO WE ARE The DAC-CSO Reference Group facilitates and coordinates engagement with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - Development Assistance Committee (OECD - DAC) by CSOs from both the Global North and the Global South, and to carry CSO positions in these spaces with the ultimate goal of promoting more and more effective aid and development finance. It serves as an avenue for members to plan and coordinate activities, positions, and ways forward related to OECD - DAC engagement. The work of the Group as an open platform of CSOs from DAC / non-DAC countries, is guided by the principles of consensus-building, transparency and accountability. Feet on the Ground: CSOs weigh in the challenges of the Triple Nexus approach Today’s international development landscape is seeing increasingly complex and compounded crisis situations, demonstrating a call for a... Feet on the Ground: CSOs weigh in the challenges of the Triple Nexus approach CSO comments on the draft DAC Policy Instrument on Enabling Civil Society DAC HLM 2020: Advancing the Role of the Private Sector in Development Cooperation On Conflict and Fragility and the Importance of Peace in the Triple Nexus Amidst the C19 crisis, DAC members turn to effectiveness and the private sector as ODA stays scarce ODA levels are below expectations despite COVID19 and climate crises UPCOMING EVENTS