Policy Paper January 2011

Ownership for Effective

Development

E
ffective use of development assistance results in communities experiencing change
they believe is good, in which they have a voice, and are committed to sustaining. True
country ownership is the full and effective participation of a country’s population via
legislative bodies, civil society, the private sector and local, regional and national govern-
ment in conceptualizing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating development policies,
programs and processes.

How to practice effective country ownership?

Country ownership1 involves using clear methods that enable a broad range of stakehold-
ers to participate in an ongoing and meaningful way in development processes and to see
their contributions reflected in the decisions and actions that are taken. There are many ways
to practice country ownership but the following mechanisms are fundamental.
Timely and accessible information distributed in ways that can be easily accessed by
a broad range of stakeholders with sufficient time to contribute input to decision-making
processes. While making information accessible on a government website is good practice,
if those affected cannot access this information, they will not be able to effectively engage.
Other ways to disseminate information include national and local newspapers, radio pro-
grams, flyers and outreach to local organizations.
Consultations are key for engaging affected stakeholders and ensuring initiatives achieve
their intended outcomes. Consultations should accommodate participation from a broad
range of stakeholders from outside and inside the capital, including those who often lack a
voice in formal processes such as indigenous and women’s groups. Consultations should
be coordinated by an agency that is the main point of contact. They should also be held at
times when they can meaningfully influence decision-making processes. A consultation’s
expected outcomes should be communicated beforehand and the minutes recorded and
distributed in ways that are accessible to all. Finally, those consulted should be informed
of ultimate decisions adopted and which recommendations were accepted or rejected and
why. Effectively conducting consultations requires special expertise. Therefore, those con-
ducting consultations should invest in advance in acquiring the necessary knowledge.
Participation entails enabling local organizations, community leaders and individuals to
have a decision-making role in development processes intended to benefit them and build-
ing their capacity to engage and their knowledge of good practice in areas such as account-
ability and transparency. Local communities consider participatory development more effec-
tive, in part because participation builds and deepens trust and addresses needs identified
by communities as the most urgent. Participatory efforts should include outreach to mar-
www.InterAction.org ginalized groups, such as women, indigenous peoples and the disabled, who face distinct
challenges that should be taken into consideration.
1400 16th Street, NW
Suite 210
1 This concept is also sometimes called “whole of society.” The term whole of society expands the circle of respon-
Washington, DC 20036 sibility and influence beyond government actors to all those who have a stake and a role to play in a country’s
202-667-8227 development.
 There are a number of current U.S. government initia-
tives that seek to practice country ownership. One well-
established example is the Millennium Challenge Corpora-
tion. Other more recent ones include Feed the Future (FtF)
and the Global Health Initiative. The FtF initiative shows the
positive results of practicing country ownership. Working in
consultation with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),
the FtF design team revised the strategy to incorporate key
success factors that had not been included in the origi-
nal plan. The initial FtF strategy also had a limited role for
NGOs that focused mainly on consultations during the ini-
tial priority-setting phase The revised strategy instead calls
for partnerships from the beginning all the way through
implementing solutions and documenting their effective-
ness. This revised approach greatly boosts the chances
that FtF will achieve and sustain the objectives set for it by
the U.S. Government.
Who is responsible for country ownership?
Many actors play a role in a country’s development. While
development is ultimately the responsibility of a country’s
people and their government, the way funds are allocated
and programs carried out can strengthen or undermine the
ability of people to own their country’s development.
National and community-level civil society organizations
are essential for effective and sustainable development.
Local organizations provide a platform for people to engage
in political processes, holding their governments account-
able for everything from service delivery to protection of
civil rights. They can also be important means for vulner-
able and marginalized communities to access political pro-
cesses. Local organizations are important sources of inno-
vation and knowledge that others with greater resources
can learn from and build on. These organizations, as well
as community leaders, should be enabled to participate
actively in development processes and hold governments
accountable to their commitments.
Host country governments have a particularly important
role in facilitating and ensuring country ownership. Host
governments should practice country ownership by mak-
ing information available in timely and accessible ways
that ensure development planning and decision-making
is transparent. They should also enable people to have a
voice in shaping this planning and decision-making. Host
governments can do this by holding regular consulta-
tions with representatives from local communities and civil
society organizations, the private sector and other actors
investing or working in the country. They can also facilitate
the coordination and alignment of development initiatives
by including major private donors that are funding initia-
tives in the country on relevant steering committees.
Donor governments such as the United States are
capable of and therefore responsible for supporting coun-
try ownership. One responsibility is to give development
representatives at the country level (e.g., USAID mission
or the U.S. embassy) sufficient flexibility to determine how
resources are used based on the context and need. A sec-
ond is to build relationships with a wide range of country
level stakeholders, strengthening their capacity if needed
and engaging with them to plan and carry out programs. A
third is to increase use of a host country’s legal, financial and
institutional systems rather than creating parallel systems,
with increased funding driven by a country’s adherence to
good governance and poverty reduction. And fourth, donor
governments should coordinate efforts among themselves,
providers of private development assistance (e.g., NGOs
and foundations) and host governments to most effectively
support country-owned development plans.
International nongovernmental organizations know that
country ownership works based on approaches developed
over decades of work around the world. NGOs often have
a long-term presence in countries and established rela-
tionships with local organizations and community leaders.
NGOs fulfill several roles, including: donor to local orga-
nizations; provider of capacity-building services to both
local organizations and government; catalyst for stronger
relationships between civil society organizations and gov-
ernment at local and national levels; innovator; and advo-
cate at national and international levels. As major provid-
ers of private development assistance NGOs also work, as
appropriate, to align their efforts with those of donor and
host country governments—efforts facilitated when NGOs
are included on relevant planning committees.
Implementing ownership in different country
settings
Humanitarian and development work takes place in vastly
different contexts around the world, from stable democra-
cies to restrictive authoritarian regimes to fragile states on
the verge of conflict or emerging from it. Even in conflict
settings, communities consider development efforts most
effective when they have a voice in shaping them.2 How
country ownership is implemented can and should be
adapted based on the context.3 For example in a fragile
or authoritarian state, more control would be exercised by
donors when aligning aid resources with the country’s pri-
orities whereas in a stable democracy the host government
would be more empowered to identify where resources
would be most strategic. In this range of contexts, donor
governments and international NGOs should continue to
engage with local organizations, reflecting community pri-
2 Mercy Corps, “The Benefits of Community Led Development Program-
ming in Insecure Environments” http://www.mercycorps.org/leapp
3 Oxfam America, “Ownership in practice: The key to smart develop-
ment” http://www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/ownership-in-prac-
tice-the-key-to-smart-development
orities in how resources are allocated and building local
capacity to hold their own governments accountable.
Conclusion
Country ownership is critical to effective development
because efforts that reflect the priorities of a community
and involve its members are more likely to be supported
and maintained. Local communities can be very effective—
addressing cultural barriers, transforming behaviors and
bringing together local resources to complement public
resources. The way the U.S. Government delivers develop-
ment and humanitarian assistance should reflect and rein-
force the value of this engagement. Significant steps will be
taken towards achieving this if U.S. Government actions
across all agencies delivering development and humani-
tarian assistance are grounded in a common definition of
country ownership, such as the one in this paper, and are
guided by a common set of guidelines.