The co-hosts of the 2024 Development Leaders Conference—CGD's Mikaela Gavas, Siti Nugraha Mauludiah from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Indonesia, and Norad's Bård Vegar Solhjell—share their takeaways from the event, including the diverse experiences of traditional and emerging donors, the challenges of bridging gaps between sectors and priorities, and the importance of sharing solutions within the development community.
The CGD Podcast
CGD Podcast: Development Leadership with Siti Nugraha Mauludiah and Bård Vegar Solhjell
COVID, climate, and conflicts. The United Nations, the World Bank, private actors. Locally rooted institutions, locally rooted experts. What we're really talking about is a very complex ecosystem. How do we find the interlinks? To innovate and come up with the best solutions. To actually rethink what we do as a broader development community. You're listening to the CGD podcast where we explore smarter policies for a better world. Welcome to the CGD's podcast. I'm Michaela Gewass. I'm the Managing Director of the Centre for Global Development. And I'm joined today by two distinguished colleagues. Citi Molludia, Director General of Information and Public Diplomacy at the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And Board Vega Soliel, Director General of NORAD. Both of whom we have partnered with as the co-hosts of the Development Leaders Conference. That we have just concluded here in Bali, Indonesia. Now the Development Leaders Conference is CGD's annual conference now in its seventh year. And the conference brings together senior officials from bilateral agencies, multilateral organisations and development banks, as well as policy strategists and leading thinkers in a unique and private setting under the Chatham House rule. Where they really focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities they face. Where they can exchange views and experiences and crucially where they can learn about each other about their different approaches and work towards forging new partnerships. Now this year's conference was particularly noteworthy for the enhanced participation of the emerging development corporation providers. Some of whom are also recipients of international support at the same time. And I was particularly struck by both the differences, but also the similarities in the perspectives across these two groups. So I'd like to ask you both what your overall takeaways were from the conversations, which we've just concluded over the past two days. And perhaps I can start with you, Citi. Well, I would like to echo the broader participation of emerging development partners. When we reached the discussion, we heard so many perspectives even within the group. There's also different perspectives. So this is the second time I joined the former leaders conference. And the first time it was in Oslo, I think at that time, the conversation more towards the developed donors, you know, the traditional donors, these issues and challenges that you were facing. But today's, in these two days, meeting in Bali, the issues are also very pertinent to us. You know, the issues discussed from the first session until the fifth session. For instance, the ODA reform. Before the listening to the conversation here, we see it rather skeptical, you know, that you are taking away the 30% of ODA for one specific focus, for instance, climate change. We were worried about that, but then listening to the reason behind it yesterday, we understand more that it's not about only focusing on climate change, but some initiatives also, you know, creating the adaptation to climate change. So for us, it's encouraging so that, okay, there's a shifting, but we are still talking about, you know, the need for the developing countries to adapt and then mitigate climate change. The reform of ODA really is very timely, because in Global South, we are going to have the 70th anniversary of Asian African Conference, where we would like to show that the solidarity of Global South is enhanced, but at the same time, this is also being supported by the Global North, because, you know, no matter how much we are doing, how many or much resources we put into it, it cannot really, you know, like replace what the Global North has provided. So I think in the conversation of the reform, we would like to really involve in that so that we make sure that the interest of the Global South is also represented in the reform itself. Thank you. Thank you, Siti. Board Vega, your takeaways. I agree with, you know, Siti and what you said also, Mikaela, that the difference between this conference, this roundtable compared to many other events from roundtrapals, I do. It's of course that we both had the Global North and the Global South here as providers or donors of development systems, while you largely tend to think about traditional European and East Asia and Korea, Japan, the U.S. as providers, and just to give the listeners an idea what kind of countries we're talking about, of course, Indonesia and Thailand, for instance, in Asia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Colombia, Argentina, to mention a few that were here. And all these are now providers of development systems. Sometimes referred to as new or emerging, I don't like those where it's many of them aren't especially new, really, but still. So to takeaways first that it's quite common in our world that a country goes from being poor and receives development systems to becoming rich. So France received a World Bank loan in 1947. So Finland and Japan, you know, rich countries today received development assistance. And I also know that Greece and Portugal as late as in the '90s, they were countries that could receive development assistance, Oda, or Oda, eligible, as we say. So I think that's an important mindset, you know. Development is happening. Countries are graduating becoming richer, and that's a very common road for countries. A second takeaway is, of course, a bit, you know, the other way around. So if you look at the numbers, if you take away China and some of the Gulf states, it's still totally dominated by what we could refer to as the traditional donors. So many of the emerging donors, in lack of a better word, are still, you know, if you look at the amounts, it's quite limited. So of course, what happens in Europe, in North America, in East Asia, the Pacific, is still very important to the large sums of development systems. It's great, so let's talk a little bit more about Oda, and clearly something that came out of the conference around the fact that resource-constrained governments are using Oda to meet a broadening array of financing demands, including global challenges, such as climate change, and all of this alongside traditional country-focused action. And they're doing this at the same time as, without, in fact, growing these ODA flows in line with the scale of the challenges faced. So Board Vega, in your view, what should ODA be used for? So in a generation or so, Oda has grown, you know, it's almost doubled. But in real terms, which we think inflation into count, it hasn't grown a lot. So, rather stable or a little growth, while what it is used for has grown and changed substantially, I would say. And it's not that, you know, this is legal, it's in with on in the requirements, because they are very broad. So original purpose is, of course, to reduce or alleviate poverty, then humanitarian assistance has grown a lot, especially the last 10, 15 years, but because of a rising number of conflicts that's growing a lot now, then there really the big novelty is, of course, that it's increasingly being used for global challenges, especially climate mitigation. And if you look at the growth of the last 10 years, almost all of it is climate mitigation. Then of course, the last few years, especially in European development, which is a big part of it, support to Ukraine and support to refugee costs in countries has grown a lot. So last year was the first year, at least I know that total ODA development assistance for Europe was bigger than total development assistance for sub-Saharan Africa. And I think this kind of challenges are so, you know, when people talk to me about my job, you know, I lead in development agency in Norway, and they think I work with the poorest countries in the world, helping out poor people there. And I do that, but I also work a lot with climate, you know, and global issues or pandemic preparedness, and now Ukraine is by far the biggest recipient of Norwegian development assistance. So it's like we have a box and we have put a lot more into that box without growing the box a lot. I don't have a solution, but I think we need to have a more structured conversation whether we should think differently about how we support these issues. Poverty elevation is very different from a global challenge like mitigation, or I would say a pandemic. The latter one, a pandemic or climate mitigation, you can do anywhere in the world, you should do where it's most effective. And it's in this interest of everyone, while of course reducing poverty in a specific country, Somalia or Mali or wherever, is mostly about solidarity, about helping others out. And maybe we need to think about this. I think one of the challenges, of course, there is only one really tool in the international toolbox of financing, and that's development assistance, while challenges have grown and changed. So I think it's a big conversation on this, but that's been the best part of the meeting today, I think, a lot of people in this room see that we have a challenge here. Yeah. And differentiating between those places where aid is absolutely essential for basic services, you know, health, education, and those places where issues are more global in nature as well. It's correct, and let's say there are now, maybe 20, 30, 40 countries where aid is still quite big part of their budget and financing, often the poorest countries in the world. Many of them in Sub-Saharan Africa, not all, but many. On the other hand, many of the global challenges that I mentioned, for instance mitigation, of course, private capital will have to play a much bigger role. And also, in many big middle-income countries, they have to take a bigger part of the responsibility than the poorest countries are able to do. So that's true. At the same time, I think everyone understands that the world collectively needs to deal better and more with the global challenges like climate change, because the problem is historically, largely created in rich countries, but also big middle-income countries, which now have really, really high emissions and also need to be a part of that financing. Exactly. And, Citi, let's talk a bit about South-South cooperation. I mean, what are some of the financing challenges you're facing when conducting South-South cooperation, and how do you incorporate global challenges like climate into your South-South cooperation? Well, of course, our resources are limited, so we cannot really do whatever it needs to be done, but we have to prioritize it. We have to make sure that whatever we spend are really on target. Climate change, for instance, the global challenge for climate change, to include that in the development cooperation from Indonesia to South countries, is necessary and strategic. So we should do that, but then back at home, people would say, "Why are you giving aid or assistance on climate change? We need to help them to come out from poverty." And the same in the recipient countries, if we say, you know, labeling it in climate change, they would say, "I need food. I don't care whether it's hot or rain." That's a basic question, actually, but then I think whatever we are doing, when we think about climate change while doing it, I think that's also putting the climate change issues in priority. For instance, if we are providing economic assistance on how to ensure increased productivity on agriculture, for instance, on a rice field, for instance, it would end up like that they are using the land more effectively. So it means less resources needed, and so it would, at the end, contribute to the attainment of adaptation of the climate change. So I think what we have to do here is like mainstreaming the climate change issues in whatever we are doing. Let's turn to another hot topic of a discussion at the Development Leaders Conference, that of demonstrating to the general public that development programs work and that they can be very effective when done right. So just going back to the narrative, the question to you both is how can development leaders articulate narratives that best build public support for their endeavors? So both Indonesia with its new communication strategy and Norway with the public discourse on the future of ODA provide interesting examples of how the narrative is evolving and how we can learn from those experiences. So Board Baker, your experience. Yeah, so I think the discussion about support of the narrative is largely about two different things. So one is, do we need it? You know, the idea behind it and the other is about results. So does it work? Is it effective? So the first part, of course, we already talked a little bit about that, but I think the motivation is important. What we see is that still humanitarian development systems has quite broad support almost everywhere. You know, you need to help people in need where there's an earthquake or a disaster or a war. The traditional mandate in Norway is still strong. We hear here that that's different in many countries, you know, support for the idea of helping people out is not that strong. And then, again, climate is growing and I say, you know, I say, I say, you know, a motivation, but it's very different levels of support in different countries. Broadly in Scandinavia, where I come from, I think it's still fair to say that development assistance has quite strong support, but it's being challenged. And I think the main reason is a tough fiscal situation for governments and also a social and economic situation in all European and so global North countries, where with rising interest rates, higher prices, inflation and so on. So then turning to effectiveness. So I have this internal slogan and note that it's in Norwegian. It's fucked the high market. It means fact should have the power or, you know, but it rhymes in you in Norwegian. So, yeah, it works better. But I think when you look at that, it's clear for this conversation that in some fields like in education or healthcare, sexual and reproductive health and rights, we have a quite good evidence base, especially on the intervention level, meaning exactly what you do on the ground. While I think it's a big challenge with you, we know much less what to do on adaptation and mitigation does on climate change, which is becoming so big and so urgent, really a big challenge we're taking away from here. Another challenge is that we know a lot what works on the intervention level, but if you go to the system level, you know, how to build an education system together with a country, how to partner on integrating climate or human rights or whatever into your work, then it is much more challenging to measure and to show results. And I see that in many European countries, that where it's hard to not to argue that you are actually saving lives or achieving very concrete things, then it's also tough for to argue that this is an effective and good use of public resources. Exactly. And seating from the Indonesian experience, any lessons? Well, yes, we've been providing assistance for quite some times now around, you see, 40 years, even though it was institutionalized formerly early 20s, you know, at the moment, if we are talking about providing humanitarian assistance, it's okay. Everybody says, yes, we need to do it, humanitarian assistance, be it as conflict, you know, or conflict or disaster relief. So it's okay. Nobody's questioning it. Yes. We have to be first giving the help because we have had help greatly from the international community for instance, during the tsunami and people see if that we did benefit from all these international assistance when the tsunami hit in 2006. And then when it goes up to the technical assistance, when it's come to a grant or infrastructure development for instance, that we started doing it since we have the energy aid, people will just really, are you sure? We need to have that kind of, you know, a facilities, for instance, or we need to build something in the villages. So you see the perspective, but then again, we come from no, from the technical assistance. Now it's okay, you know, hopefully by the time we are growing our budget for the development assistance, they would say okay to also grant. And then we really have to have a good narrative for that. Of course, we have to see who are we talking about, you know, it's like we are talking to the public or we are talking to the member of parliament, we are talking to other stakeholders, it's different, you know, like different way. But again, it's really still a challenge for us. And you know, from the discussion, I realized that it's not only the challenge for the the developing, you know, the emerging development matters, but the traditional donors is still having some challenges, different challenges. But it's interesting to listen to them and we will get there somewhere. And so we get to be ready to address that. Yeah, yes, yes, so both the emerging and the traditional countries, there is this precariousness of development cooperation in the perceptions of the public is very real. One of the other topics that we discussed quite a lot and a crucial topic for the Development Leaders Conference is the development of partnerships. And we heard from many colleagues here over the conference how they structure their partnerships with both recipient countries, but also with local partners. So what aspects did you find particularly interesting and what do you take away from the conversation? So that development has to be locally led and in a way demand driven. And I think a really interesting thing that I've learned from not only CD, but you and others and what we refer to as emerging donors, countries that are also receiving developments is to this, you know, this is even more obvious and crucial to put this even more at the center of what we do. But I also see it even with many of the least developed countries that they, which is I think is a really great team, they demand to be in the driver's seat to a much bigger degree. And I think that also to get results that are lasting and sustainable, you need to have that dimension there. And this is of course something many development practitioners or people in an agency would say. But to me it becomes clearer in a conversation like this one and I think it's getting to a level where we just have to do that better. So it affects how we do development systems with demand moral partners that they are actually localized, whether they're UN partners or NGOs. And I also said that it's about getting resources to the government, but also the power relation, the way we're kind of understanding that the power relation has to change. Yeah, and something that came out very clearly from the conversations was this central feature of trust as a basis for partnership. C.C., what were your perspectives on this? I agree with you. It has to be locally owned and it has to be in line with the national interest. We don't like to have the additional donor or partner for the development coming here and then said, "Okay, we are going to do this, this is because this is our national priorities." Well, okay, that's your national priorities, but do we really need that, right? Our national priorities, the development priorities is this, this, this. So if you want to help us, this is that we have to work on. I'm talking about your asset recipient, right? Then this experience of being the recipient really prepared us when we are becoming the provider. You know that even now I was surprised that some of our colleagues here say that traditional donors have some vested interest in providing the assistance, right? So the trust was not there. For us, we used to think like that, but because traditional donor partners has aligned their development assistance to our priority, we gradually trust them more, that yes, you are helping us because we need assistance. It's not because you see something in your benefit in helping us. So trust is really important here. And so when we are providing assistance, we show them that this is genuine, this is genuine partnership. No one, no hand is above and one hand is down, you know, is something like that because you mentioned about power, power play here. No, we, whatever you need, we will provide, we have budget restriction, but through our capability, we are helping you. So that's the thing in making a long lasting partnership. Port Veko, how do you build trust in a world which is increasingly insecure, geopolitically fragmented? How do you do it? So that's a great question because it's so difficult. It's harder to build that trust now than when I started in my position four and a half years ago. And it's a change in quite short time. It's driven by several events because Russia's brutal attack on Ukraine, the war now in Gaza, but I would also say the world's collective handling of COVID. All these three events had a negative effect on maybe, especially, you know, global north south trust, but also, of course, challenging geopolitical tension between Western Europe and Russia, between the US and China. So first dialogue, talking to people is always at the center of building trust. So, you know, some people say that, you know, and they're so tired of endless talk, but the only thing is versus that you don't talk, right? So actually talking to people, having a dialogue, meeting people, you know, cross traditional orders is extremely important. I also think that it's a challenge if we were to reduce, you know, development assistance and cut it in a period where we need to show that we're willing to finance development and climate and the other goals we have with development assistance is an issue. It's an argument I often use and I hear others using it also in Nordic debate, for instance. Then, of course, also the focus of our attention and saying this may be mainly to Westerners, but so the word that has killed most people the last few years is, of course, the word in northern Ethiopia and Tigray, by far. We don't know how many, but scientists agree that this has been the worst war modern times. I think if you're European or probably also North American, you have heard a lot more about the war in Gaza or in Ukraine. They are very important that every good reason Ukraine is our neighbor, that we're a neighbor to Russia and so on, but we also have to have the ability to care about other conflicts. Right now, for instance, Sudan, a terrible conflict, I think that's extremely important that there is a truly global agenda and outreach to how we spend our resources and also to our mindset. Exactly. Exactly. And the list is growing, the Yemen, Afghanistan, so on, working of us. Okay. So finally, the ultimate question that I would put to you both. So first, Citi, when you head back to Jakarta, is there anything that you think you might do differently or attempt to change following our two days of discussion here in Bali? Well, this meeting, the D.L.C. meeting was preceded by imagine the proper partners meeting. Thanks to you, because we are able to have this meeting, but agree that there is no need for us to have the regular meeting. After these two days, I was more convinced that we still need to have the conversation with the traditional donor. So that's why maybe it's good if we have the same format like today, because then we could have our own meeting separately, but then having the conversation in the broader audience with the traditional donor. So it's not up to me because I want the collective ownership of this EDP meeting, but truly, there is no such one of meeting yet. It used to be one held by the UN office of Southside Corporation, but it's not a regular basis. We want to have the regular so that it has the impact, and we have a forum that we could seek for, you know, like answer if we couldn't find it ourselves. So I think that's what I'm going to do differently. That's great. That's great. Thank you, Citi. Port Vega, when you go back to Oslo, anything you're going to do differently, or maybe do more of? So two very different things for me. So first, I'm energized by working with the two of you and your institution, so the Center for Global Development. And my view is probably the leading global think tank on development, so really a lot of deep thinking and good word data that you are presenting, it's important for our work and because Indonesia and Norway, we have a very deep and broad collaboration, even though we are two very different countries, you are 50 times as many people, and a huge country. We are ocean nations, we work very closely on forests and also, you know, strong foreign policy relations, so it's been really good to work with you, Citi. Then one, you know, there are different takeaways, but one, this was no longer. We need to discuss about the size and structure of what we spend on development, assistance and global issues in the future. By the size, I mean, so there's simply a bigger difference between what's available and the challenges now than in the former decades. We are doing slower progress on the SDGs, there are bigger humanitarian needs, the climate mitigation and adaptation, it's a huge need and climate alone to take many times or other budgets and we're not getting enough traction out of mobilizing private capital. There's simply a need to finance more global challenge of finance more of what we are common challenges internationally. And also by the structure, I'm returning to the first part of this conversation. We need to discuss whether this one box is the right tool for all these things or we need to divide more clearly between different goals and different streams of financing. And we need to, you know, address the conversation about stepping up, stepping up from the richest countries, stepping up from new middle-income countries that have developed and I think that conversation needs to be taken more clearly and I knew it from before but these two days have made it very clear to me. Thank you, thank you. I mean, certainly my takeaway from the conference is that, well, I walk away with a much better understanding of both traditional and emerging donors, what their real sort of strategic and practical challenges that they face and I think, you know, everybody did agree that change is needed, there is not so much of an agreement as to what that change is at this point but this is just the beginning of a journey and hopefully we can continue the conversation and really pin down what we need to do differently to be as effective as possible in what is a very difficult world. So thank you very much to both UCT and Board Vega, we will be hosting next year's development leaders conference, that's in 2025 in Germany together with the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and we very much look forward to continuing the conversation with both of you. And please do look out for more content from CGT, thank you. Thanks for listening to the CGT podcast, you can learn more about the topics discussed on our website, cgdev.org, that's cgdev.org, see you next time. [Music] (upbeat music)