CONCERNED that the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness;
 1. Is a minimalist approach to the issues around aid
 2. It is not legally binding
 3. Focuses on management of aid and not on the impact which is poverty reduction and development
 4. Almost 3 years after the adoption, not much has been achieved in terms of implementation

RECOMMEND that with respect to the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness;

Ownership
 5. Southern Governments should exercise leadership and ownership by developing clear aid management policies
 6. Conditionalities should be explicitly dealt with in the declaration
 7. Popular participation should be well articulated and provided for in the declaration

Alignment
 8. Donors should use the existing financial systems and human capacities of the recipient Governments
 9. Donors should use National Development Plans as a basis for support

Harmonisation
 10. Aid should not be supply but demand driven
 11. Donor agencies should be well coordinated and not come individually to CSOs and Governments while CSOs should also organize themselves under umbrella bodies
 12. Recipient countries rather than donors should determine the comparative advantage at sector or country level

Managing for Results
 13. Should be impact based than results based
 14. Multi-Stakeholder monitoring and evaluation mechanism should be put in place
 15. Should aim at poverty reduction and sustainable development beyond operational management
 16. Should refer to qualitative and not just quantitative

Mutual Accountability
 17. Both the roles of Parliament and Civil Society Organisations should be strengthened
 18. Donors should disclose their funding to the citizens of the recipient countries
 19. CSOs should be an intergral part of an Independent Monitoring Group to assess the role of all parties in development efforts

FURTHER RECOMMEND that in line with the above principles with respect to relationships that condition the contribution of civil society organizations to Aid Effectiveness;

Government and Civil Society Organisations Relations
 20. An enabling, non hostile, legislative, regulative environment be created that gives CSOs space
 21. CSOs are development partners and should not be viewed as competing but complementing Government in poverty reduction and development
 22. Government should engage and allow CSOs to participate in policy dialogue if the voice of the people and the poor is to be heard. CSOs should not be used to rubberstamp policy processes. Policy dialogue should not be ad-hoc and discretionary by the Government
 23. Government and CSOs should work together and avoid competing for resources from donors

Northern and Southern Civil Society Organisations Relations
 24. Northern CSOs should be transparent and accountable to the Southern CSOs by declaring the full amounts they receive from donors in the name of Southern CSOs
 25. Joint proposal writing by both the Northern and Southern CSOs should be encouraged in fundraising for aid from donor countries
 26. There should be mutual learning and sharing between Nothern and Southern CSOs.

Donor and Civil Society Organisations Relations
 27. Donors should enhance direct funding to Southern CSOs and reduce the role of intermediary agencies
 28. Donors funding should target poverty reduction and development and not the donor national interests
 29. Donors should recognise the mandate of CSOs and give them support and space to operate freely

Relations between Civil Society Organisations and their Constituencies
 30. CSOs should be accountable to their constituencies more than to the donors