Multiyear “Other” Commitments

Multiyear ‘other’ commitments are commitments that declare they are going to accomplish a non-monetary goal over a set number of years. There have been a number of these commitments that have been measured for compliance in the past. In 2000 one such commitment read as follows: “We therefore commit ourselves in working in strengthened partnership with governments, the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations and other relevant actors in civil society to deliver three critical UN targets: a) reduce the number of HIV/AIDS-infected young people by 25% by 2010; b) Reduce TB deaths and prevalence of the disease by 50% by 2010; c) reduce the burden of disease associated with malaria by 2010.”

In these instances, formulas should be established based on initial commitments that measure how much should be done by each actor. These should first and foremost be based on what it actually says in the commitment. If different countries commit different levels of involvement, or if the commitment states that actions will be taken through an allocated organization, this is what should be measured. Next, a simple model which assumes equal distribution of action over the set length of the commitment should be established. If an actor fails to commit to the previously promised action(s) or it fails to commit in any new way and is behind the minimum formula, it will receive a score of -1. If a country takes new actions and is behind on the minimum funding formula it will receive a 0. If an actor commits in new ways and/or is ahead or on track with the formula it will receive a score or +1. It should be noted that in multiyear ‘other’ commitment cases, funding may be an indicator of compliance, but does not necessary need to be, if the commitment itself does not specify funds as part of the action.

Double Counting

Over the years, concerns have arisen over double counting. Double counting refers to actors who consider a single contribution as fulfillment of more than one commitment. Most recently this concern refers to ODA and debt relief. It should first be noted that at the Gleneagles Summit in 2005 when such initiatives took form, it was outright established that ODA and debt relief were to be considered separately. And it can be assumed that because the commitments are referred to separately in the communiqués, they are indeed meant to be committed to individually. For instance, in the 2007 Heiligendamm document, commitments for debt relief and ODA were both identified, and there were done so separately (Commitment 143 stating: “These include the historic multilateral debt relief of up to US $60 billion, the implementation of which is now well underway. Commitment 144 stating: “They also include increasing, compared to 2004, with other donors, ODA to Africa by US $25 billion a year by 2010.”). Therefore, funding allocation must be specified to each area by each actor to be considered compliance in both areas. Any indication by an actor that one donation should be considered to fulfill more than one commitment is not the case, and should be considered for only one commitment. See the DCD-DAC branch of the OECD for more information: http://www.oecd.org/dac.