Showing posts with label aid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aid. Show all posts

Saturday, May 23, 2009

EU Development Aid and the EP elections

EU development aid is a subject that I am interested in both professionally and personally, and that I, in all due modesty, know a lot about. The European Parliament will, when the Lisbon treaty is ratified, have a increasing role to play in European development policy, and I therefore have found it interesting to study what Danish candidates think about this problem. The subject has not had much attention, although it is now interesting that the Danish NGO, MS, has had a poll made by the pollster Capacent, in which 55 percent of the respondents agree to the statement that a it is important for their choice of candidate that he/she is worried about EU's role in relation to poor countries ("Det er afgørende for mit valg af kandidat til Europaparlamentsvalget, at vedkommende bekymrer sig om EU's rolle i forhold til fattige udviklingslande"). Looking at the questions this is hardly surprising, and I am quite certain that if they ask any candidate "Are you worried about EU's relation to poor developing countries?", they would all reply "yes". It is thus interesting that MS has also proceeded to ask many (not all!) candidates 17 specific quesitons as what aspects they will work for in the European Parliament. Here, what causes most attention is the relatively small discrepancies in the replies: except for a couple of candidates from Dansk Folkeparti, and a few dissenters in Venstre, there is clearly a general agreement that EU should work towards the MDG's, that EU aid should be transparent and aimed at poverty reduction, that gender is important, and that fair trade with developing countries should be at the core of development assistance (nearly every candidate answered positively to tear down eksport subsidies on agricultural products and work for a dismantling of the CAP). The main discrepancies appear in more controversial themes such as what is considered development assistance (such as debt-relief), but in particular in areas of climate change, what environmental support should be considered to be aid, and biofuels. However, interestingly, there was also general agreement on creating a fund to aid aigainst negeative effects from climate change in developing countries. The question on whether the candidates would work to realize the goal to give 0,7 percent of GDP in aid by 2015 was only answered negatively by candidates from Dansk Folkeparti and Liberal Alliance, as well as Torkil Sohn from Folkebevægelsen mod EU and Jan Winther from Venstre. In fact, it is notable how much candidates from Liberal Alliance and Dansk Folkeparti were in agreement in most questions, with the exception of Morten Messerschmidt from Dansk Folkeparti, who largely followed the general replies. Besides the publication of this commendable report, MS is not engaging in any further debate, besides telling us through a video of ActionAid that it is important to vote for a candidate who cares about the poor. It is a pity that with this MS does not seem to want to engage in a debate of where they want EU to go with its development assistance (should it completely supplant member state development aid, as suggested by Sofie Carsten Nielsen?) and more broadly what should be the EU's role in the world? It is clear that this is the core of the disagreement between many of the candidates who otherwise gave such similar answers in the poll; the EU-sceptic Søren Søndergaard has given exactly the same replies as the super pro-EU candidates Sofie Carsten Nielsen from Radikale Venstre or Dan Jørgensen from the Social Democrats. In fact, except for one question, Jens Rohde from Venstre has followed Søren Søndergaard's answers. Many candidates I have considered have answered a list of questions I sent. One of these questions was about development aid. Added to interviews the top candidates of eight parties (except Benjamin Dickow from Liberal Alliance, who I assume is just going to say that EU should not bother with this) in the Danish development journal Udvikling , I have an idea of what the priorities are for a small number of the candidates, who are surely also the ones with a position on the subject:
  • Some candidates don't think EU should give aid at all: Torkil Sohn from Folkebevægelsen mod EU is the most clear. Ditte Staun from the same party thinks Danish aid should be channeled via multilateral institutions. Kenneth Kristensen from Dansk Folkeparti is against EU aid in principle, but thinks that if it must exist it should focus on supporting countries with good governance and democracy.
  • Democracy and good governance is also central to a number of candidates. Morten Messerschmidt from Dansk Folkeparti wants to fight corruption, while Karsten Skawbo from Conservative also mentions good governance and respect for human rights as foci of aid. Democracy and rights are also part of the SF candidates Emilie Turunen and Margrethe Auken, while Klaus Larsen Jensen from the Social Democracy also values democracy support.
  • Microloans and jobs are quite central to the candidates from the Conservative party and Venstre: Jens Rohde and Bendt Bendsten both mention it, while Christian Wedell-Neergaard and Karsten Skawbo from the Conservatives call it "help for self-help". Emilie Turunen from SF also mention support for micro-loan schemes and jobs, while Klaus Larsen Jensen mentions that aid should focus on job-creation
  • Trade for development is central to nearly all candidates albeit from different perspectives. Kasper Elbjørn and Charlotte Antonsen from Venstre both believe that the core is to tear down trade barriers. Jens Rohde, Bendt Bendtsen, Sofie Carsten Nielsen and Ditte Staun from Folkebevægelsen all echo this quite explicitly, while Emilie Turunen specifically says that export-subsidies and reform and CAP is at the core of free trade (although they do not say it, I believe the other candidates agree on this nevertheless), and is in agreement with Søren Søndergaard, who nevertheless also says that there should be justice in trade-agreements (specifically with ACP countries). Hanne Dahl from Junibevægelsen and Johannes Lebech from Radikale Venstre also mention the importance of fair trade agreements between the EU and developing countries.
  • Climate is also an issue that is at the core of much of the debate in general, but also specifically in regard to development aid. Dan Jørgensen, Jens Rohde and Sofie Carsten Nielsen all seem to prioritise climate change in questions of development aid, with the latter specifically mentioning new technologies. Margrethe Auken and Bendt Bendtsen both say there should be more integration between environmental questions and development aid.
  • Health is not mentioned by many: Jens Rohde mentions the fight against malaria and HIV/AIDS, just as Karsten Skawbo from the Conservative. Lasse Grønning from Radikale Venstre direktly links health and poverty as the core areas of development aid.
  • Interestingly, Johannes Lebech from Radikale Venstre is the only one who links development aid to one of the core issues in Europes' borders, namely immigration policy.
I think that if anyone is going to decide his or her vote solely on the issue of development cooperation (which I personally won't, but it does nevertheless play a role for me), they should consider one of the candidates I have mentioned above. The rest, in my view, have a too limited opinion on the issue (at least in what has come out and what I have been able to find).

Monday, April 27, 2009

Ownership of development aid

I recently went to a seminar at the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), for a presentation of two books. Firstly, The Politics of Aid: African Strategies for Dealing with Donors, edited by Ms. Lindsay Whitfield, a book that is the result of a three year research project on "ownership" of international development assistance, using the case of eight African countries: Ghana, Tanzania, Mozambique, Botswana, Ethiopia, Mali, Rwanda and Zambia (if they had included Uganda, they would have had chosen all the countries that are chosen for nearly all studies on aid in Africa...). I must admit that I have not yet read the book (but ordered it), but still found the presentation quite simplistic, and overly academically looking at development aid, an area that is too dominated by academics and pop-stars. In the presentation summarizing the the book, it was said that "ownership" was greatest in Ethiopia and Rwanda, due to the specific conditions there. However, it never problematised the concept of ownership, and clearly meant government ownership (the presenter at one point talked about sovereignty, equalizing it with ownership, something that in my post-modern view of the world is quite old-fashioned, not to say naive), which is quite problematic when the presenters later found "bad governance" as being a problem in many of the countries. Also, there seemed to be no consideration (at least in the presentation) on "ownership" and development outcomes; some of the countries found to have next to no ownership, such as Ghana or Mozambique, have shown great strides in economic development over the last years, and this could lead one to ask whether "ownership", as defined in this book, matters at all...? As I mentioned, I have not read the book, but will - hopefully they consider many of the questions I came out with from the presentation, in which case it was an excellent marketing of the book!. Still, I think that some of the final recommendations from the seminar, about donors having to reconsider how they work with "ownership", totally misses the point: what needs to be reconsidered is whose "ownership" we talk about! "Ownership" is crucial, indeed. It is common sense that people will always want to improve their own lives, and that this is not done on command. But when you speak of the development of entire countries, you cannot just look at the government, in particular in countries where these governments don't have full legitimacy and/or are not fully accountable to their people, or where large groups are not even represented! Having worked in Africa some years, I have a big problem with governments and donors talking about ownership. In truth, to the poor people in a poor rural community, it could matter less that the "poverty reduction strategy" is elaborated and decided in some African or in some European capital; both are at the other side of the world! (let me illustrate this by the community of Nivali, in Mozambique, where I worked) There are indeed alternative definitions of "ownership", in particular among civil society groups, than the ones presented at the seminar. I think that there should be more consideration on concepts such as accountability, and more broadly, on "ownership from below" - it is only from there that real change will be initiated and sustained, no matter who "owns" the strategies!