The role of ODA in Strengthening the Capacity of Accountability Stakeholders for Domestic Revenue Mobilisation

On 9 April the ATI webinar “The role of ODA in strengthening the capacity of accountability stakeholders for Domestic Revenue Mobilisation” took place virtually, gathering over 50 participants. The event was prepared by Consultative Group 4 of the ATI, which oversees the implementation of Action 4 of the ATI Seville Declaration on Domestic Revenue Mobilisation, and moderated by Jan-Petter Holtedahl, Senior Advisor, Governance Section, Norad and CG 4 co-coordinator. Action 4 commits ATI members to enhancing the space and capacity for DRM accountability stakeholders in partner countries to strengthen the broader social contract. Progress towards this commitment is monitored along three dimensions: transparency of tax and revenue information, engagement of non-state actors in decision-making processes, and the capacity of accountability stakeholders to participate effectively. The webinar aimed to take stock of the current state of ODA for DRM with a focus on accountability actors, to examine how falling ODA has affected or will affect the role of these actors, and to reflect on the best way forward.

At the start of discussion, participants were invited to respond to a live poll question on where they are seeing the greatest effects of recent ODA cuts on accountability actors working on tax or DRM. The responses painted a clear picture: reduced funding for civil society organisations was cited most frequently (14 responses), followed by reduced research and analysis capacity (10). Reduced government transparency initiatives and reduced donor coordination and support platforms each received seven responses, while fewer opportunities for policy dialogue was selected by five participants.

The current state of ODA for DRM and accountability actors

Giovanni Occhiali, Research Fellow at the International Centre for Tax and Development (ICTD), opened with a presentation on the state of ODA for DRM and its implications for accountability actors. The figures he presented were stark: in 2023, only 17% of ODA for DRM projects explicitly referred to accountability, transparency, or non-state actor participation. Direct support to civil society organisations (CSOs) as primary implementing partners stood at just 4.5% of total DRM ODA, down from 5.8% in 2021. He pointed out that even before the current aid retrenchment, this was not a resilient funding base.

The wider aid environment has since become significantly more difficult. OECD data confirms that total ODA from DAC countries fell by 6.0% in real terms in 2024, the first drop in six years, with a further 9 to 18% decline projected from 2024 to 2025. The low-income countries are likely to be hit hardest, with projected bilateral ODA falls of 13 to 25% for least developed countries and 16 to 28% for sub-Saharan Africa. By nature, accountability work often depends on relatively small and flexible forms of support, which are usually the easiest to cut when budgets tighten.

Insights on the role of accountability actors in DRM

Occhiali outlined that existing support for accountability actors clusters around four broad areas: 

• transparency, to make tax and revenue information available and usable; 
• participation, including taxpayer education, tax literacy, and public dialogue; 
• oversight, such as parliamentary scrutiny, audit, complaints mechanisms, anti-corruption processes; 
• specialised advocacy on tax justice issues such as the taxation of wealth, tax expenditures, and illicit financial flows. 

The accountability ecosystem, he stressed, is broader than a narrow group of NGOs. It includes parliament, the judiciary, supreme audit institutions, private sector associations, labour unions, media, academia, and community actors, each fulfilling different accountability functions.

Drawing on research from Ghana and Sierra Leone, Giovanni Occhiali argued that accountability actors matter because they help create the conditions under which DRM becomes more legitimate, not just more coercive. They do so through three key functions: 

1. Making tax information meaningful by adapting it to local languages, priorities, and accessible channels.
2. Creating safe and trusted forums such as radio call-in programmes, community meetings, and public hearings where citizens can ask questions and challenge officials.
3. Linking citizen grievances, media work, technical analysis, and reform demands to sustain pressure for politically difficult but progressive reforms.

Evidence from ATI partner country experience

Occhiali drew four practical lessons from evidence gathered across ATI partner countries. 

1.  Taxpayers want more than generic taxpayer education. They want to know how much revenue should have been collected and how revenues were spent, shifting the focus from compliance messaging to accountability messaging. 
2.  The channel matters as much as the content. Radio call-in shows, formal public meetings, and informal community meetings proved far more effective than formulaic publication of information at government offices, which people often could not access, interpret, or trust. 
3. Civil society often adds the most value not as an oppositional force but as a translator, trainer, and facilitator, building taxpayer knowledge and helping turn diffuse concerns into collective demands. 
4.  Where revenue is visibly linked to services or projects, trust and willingness to engage can improve, though such links remain fragile in low-capacity settings where expectations can easily outrun reality.

Looking ahead, Giovanni Occhiali warned that the most likely scenario, if current aid trends continue, is that DRM support becomes narrower, more state-centred, and more technocratic. Citizen-facing work such as training, taxpayer engagement, radio programming, and direct CSO support may be seen as softer and easier to cut. With only 4.5% of DRM ODA going directly to CSOs, there is not much buffer to begin with. In Sierra Leone, for instance, a locally effective radio programme has already ceased following the withdrawal of partner support. The outcome could be that formal commitments to accountability remain in place, but the practical means of participation erode, leaving DRM with weaker legitimacy and a greater risk that taxpayers experience reform as extraction rather than as part of a broader fiscal contract

Panel discussion: Accountability actors and declining ODA

The webinar then shifted to a panel discussion moderated by Jan-Petter Holtedahl, bringing together perspectives from civil society, a partner country development agency, a development partner, and the philanthropic sector. The panel explored the practical consequences of declining ODA for accountability actors and possible ways forward.

Yinka Babalola, Country Director of the International Budget Partnership (IBP) in Nigeria, emphasised that the shift in ODA is not just about volume but also direction: funding is increasingly channelled to state actors, leaving accountability actors out of the picture. ODA for DRM peaked around COVID and has been falling since, with the gap left by bilateral programmes too large for philanthropy to fill. Grassroots organisations, she noted, are the hardest hit, along with investigative journalism outlets and women-led organisations. The sector is experiencing significant contractions and a corresponding loss of institutional knowledge. In response, CSOs are turning to providing technical assistance, organising webinars, and seeking funding in adjacent areas, effectively becoming generalists precisely at a time when specialist expertise is most needed.

Paul Lakuma, Domestic Revenue Mobilisation Strategy (DRMS) Specialist at the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development in Uganda, outlined the main challenges his country faces in strengthening accountability in tax and revenue matters. These include weak fiscal transparency, low citizen trust that revenues are being spent appropriately, and the complexity of tax matters straining the capacity of accountability institutions such as parliament. Low trust, he explained, forces the government to prioritise visible infrastructure projects, especially near elections, at the expense of less visible investments in social sectors. Uganda has responded by developing a homegrown Domestic Revenue Mobilisation Strategy and establishing a data lab, shifting from donor-driven accountability toward domestic ownership. However, the decline in ODA has affected the scale and frequency of citizen outreach, with the focus shifting more toward compliance than participation and fewer institutionalised platforms for citizen engagement.

Sophie Le Got, DRM unit coordinator at Expertise France, described how the organisation fully embeds CSOs in its DRM programming through structured consultation processes and partnerships with the business sector. Expertise France also promotes knowledge-sharing activities through collaboration with academia, universities, and researchers, and runs a dedicated Gender Equality and Taxation programme in partnership with Oxfam that works with local CSOs. Le Got highlighted a structural challenge: many DRM projects operate on short timelines, making it difficult to include grassroots CSOs meaningfully. She argued for longer project horizons and for linking technical assistance directly with CSO engagement rather than running them in parallel.

Peter Hurst, Independent Consultant for Tax and Development, offered a philanthropy and development partner perspective. He noted that DRM is faring relatively better than average ODA cuts, with reductions closer to 20% rather than the more drastic cuts seen in other sectors. Investment in DRM over the past decade is paying off, he argued, making it all the more important to protect the gains that have been made, including for accountability actors. Notably, while overall accountability actor funding is declining, developing-country-based NGOs are actually seeing an increase in support by ATI development partners (see picture below). Philanthropic actors, Hurst explained, typically work cross-sectorally rather than as DRM specialists, tackling issues such as health, environment, and gender alongside taxation, which creates opportunities for coalition-building across these themes. He encouraged the ATI to continue its current work, underscoring the value of the initiative’s convening and monitoring role.

Closing and outlook

The webinar concluded with closing remarks by Jan-Petter Holtedahl about the importance of continued advocacy to ensure that accountability actors remain recognised as essential infrastructure for sustainable DRM, rather than as an optional complement. The discussion reinforced a central message: in a period of tightening development cooperation budgets, the question is not whether partners can afford to support accountability actors, but whether they can afford not to, if DRM investments and gains are to be durable, equitable, and politically sustainable.

In case you missed it, you can access the webinar programme here. The presentation delivered during the session can also be accessed here.