Google+

Friday, November 30, 2007

Creating a true and equal partnership between Europe and Africa?

One week before the EU-Africa Summit takes place in Lisbon, experts invited by the Friedrich-Ebert Foundation and WEED met on 29 November 2007 in Berlin to discuss the challenges ahead of a true EU-African Partnership.

During the summit, the European Union and the African Union plan to sign a new Strategic Partnership Agreement and a Plan of Action for its implementation. The aim is to concentrate segmented European Africa policies under one coherent framework. Designed by representatives from both continents, it focuses on new and old challenges such as peace and security, sustainable development and democratic governance.

Participants in the Berlin conference discussed whether institutions on both continents are prepared to take the EU-Africa relations to a new higher level and they questioned if the new cooperation is going to be a true partnership between equals.

In his introductory statement, Sven Grimm from the German Development Institute summed up 50 years of African-European relations. In his view the new EU-Africa strategy was prepared to respond to the political changes in Africa and Europe such as the upcoming of the African Union or the EU enlargement. It can also be seen as a reaction to the appearance of China as an important actor on the African continent. Grimm noted a change of focus which puts development aid behind trade and a stronger reflection of African views within the document.

Siegmar Schmidt (University Koblenz-Landau)
pointed out that the document reflects a smallest common denominator between the different actors and is more a diplomatic paper than a real strategy with clear aims and concrete plans of action.

The first panel dealt with the current EU Africa relations including issues like governance, security, energy and economic development. Speakers from research and civil society like Stefan Mair (SWP), Siegmar Schmidt (University Koblenz-Landau), George Ehusani (Catholic Bishops Conference Nigeria) talked about progress, problems and policy recommendations.

Father George Ehusani identified the low level of knowledge Africans have about EU-Africa relations and criticized the preparation process which lead to the new EU-Africa strategy:



An important role to empower African civil society was attributed to the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). However, participants said that the ‘naming and shaming’ culture within the mechanism does not go along with the African culture of ‘consultation and advice’ and might therefore be the wrong strategy.

Sven Grimm underlined the positive trend of the APRM. In his opinion the non-participation of some African states shows that the mechanism is treated seriously:

Prof. Siegmar Schmidt pointed out that the EU-Africa Partnership is largely based on a strong and effective African Union. He fears that the EU might overestimate its new partner which will need intensive capacity building to deliver towards the expectations. Hear his comments (in German):

In the second panel, participants discussed the new strategy which is going to be signed at the EU-Africa Summit, focusing on how to implement the strategy to become political reality. Keynote speakers were Aldo Ajello (Former EU Special Representative for the Great Lakes Region), Herta Däubler-Gmelin (Head of Human Rights Committee of the German Bundestag), John Mahama (Member of the Parliament of Ghana) and Matthias Mülmenstädt (German Federal Office).

Discussions also covered the ongoing EPA negotiations between the EU and African regions.

Klaus Schilder from WEED remarked that not enough time was spent by both sides to find a common policy and that the EU enforced its position without further analysis of its old trade policies towards Africa. Matthias Mülmenstädt from the German Foreign Service predicted that the talks will lead to a minimal solution which can be carried to the WTO in 2008.

John Mahama from the Ghanaian Parliament criticized the low involvement of parliamentarians during the EPA talks as well as during the preparation of the EU-Africa Strategy:



Regarding the development of democracy and human rights in Africa Mrs. Herta Däubler-Gmelin, head of the parliamentary committee for human rights of the German Bundestag, stressed the common basis of EU and the African Union. Questioned on the new role of China and its low appreciation for human rights in its cooperation policy, she mentioned that even the Chinese increasingly start to look after human rights in Africa since the kidnapping of Chinese workers in Nigeria and strong opposition by some African leaders against new colonization attempts by China.

Towards the end of the conference, all participants agreed that the new EU-Africa Strategy is going to be an improvement for relations between Europe and Africa.

Story by Martin Behrens

Have a look on the recently published summary report of the conference.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Economic Partnership Agreements: new dangers

Source: CIDSE Advocacy Newsletter, issue 37 (November 2007)

After long negotiations, the EU is again turning the screw on African Caribbean and Pacific Countries (ACP) in a last-ditch attempt to seal a trade liberalization deal. Under a proposal by Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, the EU has endorsed a watering down of its demands in the context of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). While this might appear as a conciliatory move towards ACP countries, it is in fact quite the opposite and creates a new danger that poor countries in Central Africa and the Caribbean, among others, will further undermine their food sovereignty.

Initially, the Commission’s Economic Partnership Agreements aimed to secure liberalization in goods as well as services and government procurement markets in ACP countries. The Commission has argued that existing agreements with ACP countries were contrary to World Trade Organization rules and that EPAs would bring these countries in conformity with international rules, as well as promote their economic integration in world markets.

Almost immediately, the proposed agreements were opposed by a majority of ACP countries as well as the NGO community. One of the first reasons for this opposition is the weakness of the EU’s proposals. While it makes very high demands (liberalization of goods, services and government procurement) on poor countries, it offers comparatively very little (quota free access to the EU market for most ACP goods – which they enjoy already and to little advantage).

The proposals take no account of ACP’s countries capacity constraints to export towards the EU or meet its stringent sanitary criteria. But most importantly, the EU has failed to explain what “integration” to the world markets would effectively mean and what tangible benefits these countries would derive from it. While the Commission has consistently stressed that these Agreements would promote “growth”, it has failed to explain how this growth would be distributed in ACP economies and whether it would contribute to reduce poverty.

Under the new proposals, the EU would now drop its claims to liberalizing services and government procurement markets in ACP countries, so that EPAs would only cover goods. It also hinted that, in some cases, liberalization could take place over a period of 25 years. Though this seems like a more sensible approach, it still represents a one-sided deal for most ACP countries: the EU merely offers a market access which ACP countries already have and are mostly unable to benefit from. Also, the deal would comprise agricultural goods without discrimination. Such goods still represent the single most important source of revenue in the ACP region. Under a liberalization agreement, ACP countries’ already weak agricultural base would be vulnerable to cheap imports from the EU. This could in turn dramatically undermine the food sovereignty and long-term economic development of ACP countries.

The most worrying development in the EU’s negotiating stance is that it is presenting this proposal as time-bound: countries that wish to have a deal must sign it by the end of this year. This means ACP countries will have less than 6 weeks to examine the proposal and effectively threatens to split the ACP community between the “haves” and the “haves not”. This approach is not only bullish, but deeply irresponsible. It also sheds further light on the “development” character of EPAs.

It now seems rather clear that the EU is not prepared to genuinely engage in a reframing of the Agreements that would put development first and trigger targeted growth in the economic sectors that need it most.

EPAs will be on the agenda of the next meeting of the CIDSE-Caritas WG on Trade and Food Security which will take place in Brussels on 6-7 December.

Read more...

See also Euforic's dossiers on trade and EU-ACP cooperation

On the road to Accra: influencing the EU way forward

Source: CIDSE Advocacy Newsletter, issue 37 (November 2007)

The preparatory process for the Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Accra, Ghana, presents a golden opportunity for influencing the delivery and management of European development assistance and improving its quality. In the run up to this major international event, CIDSE and Caritas Europa will build on the existing momentum of their joint advocacy project, EU’s Footprint in the South and use the 2007 OECD DAC Peer Review of European Community (EC) aid recommendations to improve the poverty reduction focus and impact of European development assistance.

Ahead of the 2008 Spring GAERC meeting, where the Member States and the European Commission will agree on a common position for the High Level Forum, CIDSE and Caritas Europa, together with other European NGOs from the CONCORD confederation, will issue a position paper on EU aid effectiveness. Drawing upon the findings of their joint report and their Southern partners’ concerns regarding the participation of local stakeholders and democratic ownership, the two networks will convey the message that aid is most effective when those who are affected by it have a say and a role to play in setting the priorities for, as well as monitoring and assessing the impact of, development assistance.

In this respect, CIDSE and Caritas Europa will also be engaging with the upcoming Slovenian EU Presidency and the members of the European Parliament early January, urging them to consider the potential risks and challenges that may arise under the current Paris Declaration framework.

By targeting the EU and the European Commission, in particular, the objective set is to influence the world’s largest donor and encourage the Member States and the EC to commit themselves beyond the targets of the Paris Declaration. Influencing the EU’s common position would also allow shaping global discussions on the new policy trends triggered by the Paris Declaration process and have a bearing on other donors as well.


Read more...

See also Euforic's dossiers on civil society and aid effectiveness

Information and knowledge intermediaries step forward

More and more information and communication professionals, certainly in development settings, find themselves running portals, gateways, resource centres and one-stop shops. More than just providing information access, these efforts aim to bridge information gaps, make connections, and facilitate information exchanges among different people.

These people are sometimes called 'infomediaries.'

If you see yourself as one of these, or wonder what they are like, then a recent report from IDS brings together the outputs of a small meeting convened in early 2007. The discussions were rich and filled with diagrams and charts, some of which make it to the report. They were also supplemented with 'mobile discussions', when participants walked the IDS campus together - as the photos attest.

Participants came up with a number of challenges:
  • Identifying content and leveraging access to it
  • Setting and implementing editorial criteria
  • Promoting access whilst upholding copyright
  • Balancing neutrality and advocacy
  • Understanding and responding to changing external environments
  • Ensuring sustainability
  • Demonstrating impact.
Peter Ballantyne attended the meeting for Euforic. Recent discussions within the group suggest they will meet again, in South Africa in 2008.

See more Euforic resources on information, knowledge-sharing and communication

by Peter Ballantyne

Impacts of the Paris Declaration on CSO effectiveness

Source: CIDSE Advocacy Newsletter, issue 37 (November 2007)

The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness was developed by essentially donor governments for governments to improve ODA efficiency. Yet many see the agenda that has grown out of it as being at risk of becoming the defining paradigm on development.

The impact on civil society is inevitable. Organisations whose roles and activities are not considered priority increasingly feel the crunch as fewer resources are pooled into narrowly defined sectors. This was pointed out by participants at CIDSE’s recently concluded seminar on ‘Changing dynamics and strategies in cooperation and partnership for sustainable funding’ in Arusha. New mechanisms for aid allocation are put into practice with little consideration for their sometimes adverse impact on civil society.

If aid effectiveness is to be understood beyond its present limited interpretation of improving the efficiency of ever decreasing levels of ODA, then the paradigm that has grown out of the Paris Declaration needs to be amended. The starting point would be an understanding that aid, provided in volumes that ensure its effectiveness, needs to be an essential instrument of justice, not a mere compensation for injustice.

Read more...

See also Euforic's dossiers on civil society and aid effectiveness

Policy coherence for development: rhetoric or reality?

Brussels, November 26. SID European Programme, in partnership with EADI and the Evert Vermeer Foundation (EU Coherence Programme), organised today a briefing session on policy coherence for development. Base for the discussion was the European Union's first Report on Policy Coherence for Development that the EC issued late September to "highlight the interactions and complementarities between development policy and twelve other internal and external EU policies that have an impact on developing countries."

The reactions on the report have been very critical, most of all from civil society organisations. The briefing session presented critical analysis and information on the issue from different perspectives.

The session was chaired by Paul Engel (Director, ECDPM). The programme included a keynote speech by Louis Michel (Commissioner for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid) presentations by Louka Katseli (former Director, OECD Development Centre), Anders Wijkman (MEP), Françoise Moreau (DG Development), and Peter Heintze (Director, EVS/EU Coherence Programme).

Read more at http://www.sid-europe.org/

Also check out the Euforic dossier on coherence

Sunday, November 25, 2007

EADI, Euforic hold Web2.0 for Development Workshop in Bonn

In a workshop organized with EADI, Euforic introduced members of German development cooperation organizations, including GTZ, Inwent and the UN Volunteers, to the 'new web'.

The training course from 22-23 November provided the 16 participants with basic knowledge about Web2.0 tools such as blogs, rss-feeds, wikis and social bookmarking as well as new features in the web which are relevant for knowledge and information management or research.

After short introductions by the trainers, time was given to the participants to test the tools themselves and create their own blogs, wikis or social bookmarking accounts.

Particularly popular was the 'googology' session where the full text of books was searched online, web pages were searched in arabic and chinese and displayed in english, and project databases were searched for research contacts.

The closing roundtable showed a great enthusiasm about the new possibilities spread and a lively discussion on how to incorporate these new tools into more or less static knowledge management systems started among the participants.

See some pictures of the workshop on the Euforic flickr account; learn more about our other training and learning activities.

See Euforic newsfeed, dossier and wiki on web 2.0.

Story by Martin Behrens

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Euforic at the Italian Information Architects summit

The Italian Information Architects summit in Trento (November 2007) was a perfect opportunity to catch up with current thinking on information architecture on the web.

Presenters covered everything from innovation, through taxonomy to the future shape of the web.

Particularly interesting were the presentations on the construction of information architecture. The thinking in matching classification schemes to web architecture and improving user interfaces shows the difference with the traditional information management thinking. Here there are compromises between navigation and 100% retrieval. Design and ease of use are as essential as good keywording to lead users to the information they are seeking from a site.

Several presentations proved relevant to the IKM emergent project; the Euforic presentation will be elaborated upon as input to Euforic's IKM Vines project.

See Euforic newsfeed, dossier and wiki on web 2.0.

by Chris Addison

Monday, November 19, 2007

Result Based Management workshops for Belgian Cooperation

Source: MDF Newsletter, November 2007

MDF has conducted a number of awareness workshops in Result Based Management for the Belgian Development Cooperation. The initiative clearly underlined the willingness of the management of the Directorate General of Development Cooperation within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGDC) to put in application the commitments made at the international level, in particular through the Paris Declaration. The management committee as well as the staff went through the process: five workshops and a feedback day for management and staff.

Read more...

Also check out Euforic's dossier on aid effectiveness and Belgium

Friday, November 16, 2007

FOND: the new Romanian NGDO platform

Source: Concord Flash 46, October 2007

Romania is one of the two most recent New Member States of the EU and the organisation of civil society is still a big concern there – the first NGDO platform was legalised only in March 2007. Welcome to FOND, which is composed of 34 Romanian development NGOs.

It is therefore of the utmost concern to TRIALOG to strengthen the platform by supporting events, trainings and the exchange of experiences in Romania, as well as the participation of Romanian representatives in different events in other European countries and within CONCORD. Some selected examples are the Seminar on Development Cooperation in Georgia (May, Bucharest), Development Cooperation in Moldova (June, Iasi), the FOND Board meeting on Strategic Planning and Membership Criteria (July, Bucharest) and European Funding and Partnership Opportunities for Romanian NGOs (July, Bucharest).

TRIALOG has also financially supported the new coordinator of the Romanian platform since April 2007.

After having participated in the CONCORD/Euforic web seminar, the Romanian coordinator set up the FOND website: the new platform blog is at www.fondromania.wordpress.com. This gives basic information on the platform and its activities (including in English).

For further information contact Claudia Iatan, FOND Coordinator

Also check out Euforic's dossier on Romania

The aid agenda in 2008

Source: Concord Flash 46, October 2007

Aid issues will be very prominent on the international donors’ agenda in 2008 with the organisation of the Third High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Accra (September 2008) and the possible Follow-up Conference on Financing for Development (FFD) in Doha at the end of the year. 2008 thus offers good political momentum for keeping up the pressure on European member States to deliver on their aid commitments.

The Third High-Level Forum in Accra will take stock of the implementation of the so-called Paris Declaration. The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, agreed in March 2005, establishes global commitments for donor and recipient countries to support more effective aid in the context of a significant scaling-up of aid. The intention is to reform the delivery and management of aid in order to improve its effectiveness. The Paris Declaration specifies indicators, timetables and targets for actions by donor and partner governments and has an evolving agenda for implementation and for monitoring progress, up to 2010.

Regarding the FFD process, it has been agreed to hold a follow-up International Conference on Financing for Development in Qatar. Though the official agenda is not yet very clear, the Doha conference is likely to be a review of implementation so far but with no aim to re-open the Monterrey consensus or to agree on new commitments.

In the context of its Aid Watch Initiative, CONCORD organised the annual European Aid Watch seminar. Aid watchers from all the European member States met in Brussels on 3 and 4 October to evaluate their collective work (European Aid Report, media actions and campaigning) in the first half of 2007, to discuss issues regarding the quality
and quantity of aid and to plan mobilisation and actions for 2008. Aid Watchers will work collectively on EU aid effectiveness and on influencing the EU’s common position in Accra, and a third European aid report (on the quantity and quality of aid) is also due to be published.

Read more...

For further information contact Ester Asín Martínez or take a look at the Better Aid campaign website

See also Euforic's dossiers on civil society and aid effectiveness

Civil society's aid effectiveness

Source: Concord Flash 46, October 2007

A word from Brian Tomlinson - Canadian Council for International Cooperation and OECD Advisory Group on CSOs and Aid Effectiveness

In line with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, the explicit question civil society organisations have been hearing from donors is: “How are Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) organising themselves to work with donors on implementing these principles?”

The starting point in addressing CSO aid effectiveness is that civil society organisations are development actors in their own right. Their roles and contributions to development goals cannot be subsumed under those of official
donors or developing country governments, however important the latter may be in achieving these development goals. In fact, it must be clear that, in discussing CSO aid effectiveness, CSOs should not be reduced to their roles in the aid regime. The most important work of CSOs may in fact be that which they undertake with their constituencies beyond the aid relationship.

In the context of the Paris Declaration on aid’s efficiency, clearly local ownership is highly relevant, but as many have suggested today democratic ownership is a key value – not the narrow notion of “ownership” currently practised in donor/government control over development plans. Respect for political rights of assembly, participation, and the right to express a diversity of ideas underlies democratic ownership. The request from Northern organisations is to build long-term North/South CSO relationships based on mutual solidarity, based on respect and honesty in working
relationships, transparency, sharing of knowledge. Mutual solidarity implies relationships based on a negotiated shared vision and mutual accountability, and based on principles of accompaniment and subsidiarity.

CSOs, donors or governments are not development actors in isolation from one another. We also have to ask how the policies and activities of each affect and interact with those of the others, and in particular, how they undermine or strengthen principles relevant to CSO effectiveness. The extent to which these guiding principles for CSO aid effectiveness overlap (or contradict) those for donors and government in the Paris Declaration is a central preoccupation from the perspective of the Accra High-Level Forum on aid efficiency next year.

Read more...

See also Euforic's dossier on civil society and aid effectiveness

Monday, November 12, 2007

Aid effectiveness: preparation on EU and NGO sides

Source: EU News no. 7, October 2007 (APRODEV, CIDSE, Caritas Europa)

In 2008 there will be increased global attention on aid quality, with two major international events in the autumn:

- September 4th-6th 2008: Third High Level Forum (HLF3) on Aid Effectiveness in Accra, Ghana, focussing on the Paris Declaration (PD) – targets agreed in 2005 for improving aid quality. This is an OECD (DAC)-managed, donor-led agenda, but has involved southern governments, and efforts to involve civil society have markedly increased recently. It will be a Ministerial level event, focussing on progress in implementing the Paris targets, but potentially also looking at other issues.
- Autumn 2008: UN Financing for Development (FfD) Conference, Doha, Qatar, (official website) a follow up to the 2002 Monterrey FfD conference. Though details are sketchy at the moment, aid quality issues will be on the agenda. See separate article on that issue.

Both processes present major opportunities for European civil society organisations to hold their donors to account for the commitments they have made, and to push them to make further commitments to improve aid quality.

The Paris Declaration represents widespread agreement across aid donor and recipient governments as well as multilateral development institutions as to how to improve the delivery and management of aid. The commitments and targets included in the Declaration are organised around five principles: Ownership, Alignment, Harmonisation, Managing for results, Mutual accountability.

The Aid Watch group of CONCORD decided at its annual seminar in the beginning of October to focus its 2008 work plan on the aid quality agenda with the twofold objective of producing a more quality oriented European aid watch report and lobbying the EU in view of influencing its joint position for Accra and encouraging MS and the EC to commit themselves beyond the targets of the Paris Declaration.

The European Aid Watch report will represent a major tool to attract media and public attention and strengthen the lobby work. The calendar is tight however as the GAERC1 meeting is planned at the end of April and the preparation of the Aid Watch report is highly dependent on the publication of the official DAC figures. It is the reason why a separate position paper focusing on aid effectiveness will be prepared in addition to the report.

Background papers and information available from K.sohet@aprodev.net

Check out the Euforic's RSS feeds on aid effectiveness and coherence

EU-Africa strategy and action plan: what place for civil society?

Source: EU News no. 7, October 2007 (APRODEV, CIDSE, Caritas Europa)

According to the official calendar the Joint EU-Africa strategy and the accompanying action plan should be adopted at a ministerial EU-AU Troika meeting on 31st October.

It followed intensive work on both sides to fine-tune the text of the two documents in separate and joint sessions. At mid-October, the following issues were still subject to divergence of views between the two parties:

- cultural goods, which is one of the most sensitive issues
- energy and climate change, especially concerning nuclear power development
- migration and specifically the feasibility of a new fund as proposed in the Tripoli declaration
- EPAs
- debt cancellation, also from the aspect of debt sustainability

In parallel with the finalisation of the text of the strategy, the two parties worked on the elaboration of an action plan for the first two years of implementation of the strategy and on a joint institutional architecture. The action plan will be organised around a series of 8 partnerships (namely joint action programmes) on the model of the already effective infrastructure partnership.

It seems that civil society actors are expected to play a role in most of these partnerships but their real contribution will depend on the possibilities offered for civil society participation in the implementation of usual aid instruments (EDF, ENPI, annual EU budget and in certain cases additional contributions from MS) that will form the financial arm of the strategy. No radical change is to be expected in practice at least in the next two years. Our understanding is that the existing cooperation instruments will be adapted to the strategy and that the mid-term review will be a perfect opportunity for such a revision.

The Lisbon Civil Society Forum that will take place in November is the best occasion to draft a civil society declaration. It will gather up to 400 CS actors from Europe and Africa on 15 November and is followed by a seminar on 16 and 17 November where 100 participants are expected to discuss issues more in depth. More information

Read more...

Also check out the Public consultation on the EU-Africa Joint Strategy and Euforic's dossiers on Africa and civil society

Friday, November 09, 2007

Global partnerships important in dealing with climate change

“Today is not time to seek personal or national interests, nor is it time to time to seek to be elected or re-elected into office by politicians. Now is the time to place global interests high on the agenda in dealing with climate change”, Gordon McGranahan (IIED) informed delegates to a parallel session on global partnerships at the recent European Development Days.

Climate change is real. It is a global issue with catastrophic consequences. Therefore, the interests and livelihoods of present and future generations should be placed high on the global agenda, as the world inches closer to the Bali meeting where the climate change debate will once again be on centre stage.

“The climate change situation is such that humanity will all sink. The difference is only when this will happen. Some will sink earlier than others”, Gordon McGranahan warned.

The present climate change situation is a result of the quest to develop. While most assessments have pointed blame on climate change to the unsustainable development paths by the developed world, recent findings also point to the fact that even developing countries are becoming major players in the generation of greenhouse gases.

Speaking to the same session on Global Partnerships, Achim Steiner, the UNEP Executive Director, highlighted that of the top five countries in the generation of greenhouse gases, three are developing countries. These are Brazil, India and Democratic Republic of Congo. The only difference is that their contribution comes from unsustainable practices, which include deforestation and land degradation.

Steiner warned that not much of the Kyoto provisions are being followed. For example, despite commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the Rio Earth Summit, emissions have actually increased by as much as 35 percent.

Such trends in greenhouse gas generation point to the need for global partnerships, whereby individuals and countries should move away from apportioning blame but to concerted efforts to manage climate change.

Both the developed and developing countries are advised to ensure that they use clean technologies. Developing countries are further advised not to emulate consumption patterns followed by the developed world as these have been proven to be damaging to the environment.

by Clever Mafuta, SARDC

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Decentralised European cooperation with Latin America

To mark the launch of the ‘Yearbook for decentralised cooperation’ the Barcelona based Observatory for Decentralised Cooperation EU-Latin America organised a half-day conference on November 7th at the Committee of the Regions in Brussels.

Representatives of the Observatory, the Committee of the Regions, EuropeAid (URB-AL) and of several local authorities from both Latin America and Europe participated in two panel sessions on ‘The present and future of EU-Latin America cooperation : what role for local governements and regions ?’

Since the role of local authorities in decentralised cooperation (DC) is often not well understood, the EuropeAid URB-AL programme aims to find and disseminate effective models of local policies to foster development and support the needs of the poorest in society.

It was underlined that it was only since 2005 that local authorities (cities, provinces, regions) were officially recognized as actors in decentralised cooperation and provided with the necessary instruments, budgets and policies to play an effective role in Europe-Latin America development cooperation. Apart from awareness raising about global issues and respect for cultural diversity in Europe, sharing of experiences, lessons and knowledge about local development was seen as an important argument to engage in DC.

The EU has become a convinced supporter of DC and local authorities are more and more seen as driving forces for change. Obviously, questions related to the value added of local authorities, complementarity between the various actors, and institution building are taken into account.

All speakers strongly emphasized social cohesion as the focus of the policies and actions. Components of this broad concept are creation of jobs, provision of basic services for all, fostering inclusive participation, and reducing the gaps between the various local and regional actors.

For more background information, see also Euforic's dossiers on governance, civil society, and Latin America

Monday, November 05, 2007

Assessing Europe's Development Aid

Brussels, November 5. How good is the aid provided by European countries and the EC? How do we know how good it is, and what are some of the issues and questions that need to be addressed.

This session brought together two current pieces of research that shed some light on these questions.

First, Chief architect of the Commitment to Development Index, David Roodman introduced the CDI's construction and results for 2007 [Read a short report on the launch in The Hague on 2 November].

Second, ECDPM’s Gwen Corre introduced initial results of the ActionAid/ECDPM study ‘Whither EC Aid?’ that examines the added value and comparative advantage of EC aid, revisiting the debate how EC aid effectiveness is assessed.



This briefing was part of a series in different European cities.

More information on the CDI is on the CGD web site;





More information on the Actionaid/ECDPM project is on the ECDPM website.


See also Euforic dossiers on aid effectiveness, coherence, EU development cooperation.

How good is Dutch development cooperation?

The Hague, 2 November. In a briefing at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, David Roodman of the Center for Global Development shared the results of this year’s Commitment to Development Index, providing some assessments for the mainly Dutch audience to debate.



The tone of the session was set by the chair when he opened the session saying that “we are number 1 again, but there’s no room for complacency.”

Roodman explained that the Index seeks to track and assess the many different ways in which ‘rich’ countries are linked with ‘poor’ countries. Its underlying precept is that greater engagement of a government with developing countries is positive and can be ranked and rewarded in different policy areas.

The aim is to get beyond foreign aid, looking at areas like trade, security, investment, and migration. The Index does not strictly speaking ‘measure’ different policies – it helps people asks questions about their country’s – and especially their government’s – position in the Index.

The 2007 results give the Netherlands a 6.7 (out of 10) score – a slight decrease from 2006 but still enough to top the rankings. According to Roodman: “The Netherlands is about average in four areas, so if the best can do better, all of them can.”

Three of the key ‘take away’ messages of Roodman: That aid is much more than just quantity; that development is much more than just aid; and that even the top ranked countries have average scores on several of the measures.



Paul Hoebink (CIDIN) kicked off the panel reactions, questioning whether his country deserves the gold medal. He queried some of the methodological assumptions and asked whether the data used actually measure the ‘development friendliness’ of Dutch policies. Is high foreign private investment by Dutch companies necessarily development friendly? Perhaps it is a sort of tied aid?

Peter Konijn (Cordaid) took a different perspective, looking more into the usefulness of the the Index as a tool for change. He suggested that it might be a good tool to put ‘peer pressure’ on different governments and he wondered whether it might actually be a basis for governments to commit themselves to better scores in the various policy areas. He concluded by pointing out that a good result for the Netherlands does not help a civil society organization like Cordaid in its campaigning – the government can point to their high CDI rankings!

Questions from the floor ranged across various issues. What is the ‘development’ that the countries are ranked towards? What is the overall purpose of the Index? How can different elements be improved? What effects does it have in different countries, in terms of changing the behaviors of governments? The session clearly stimulated discussion on the relations among the policies, the degree they are –or are intended to be – development friendly, and the data and measures used. Roodman made it clear in one of his responses that the Index seeks to ‘measure’ policies, not the motives behind policies.

Following the presentations in The Hague and Brussels, there remain a lot of tantalizing notions: Countries where governments are closer to the people seem to achieve a higher rank. Taking action on climate change and the environment requires that the rich take the lead. Does the security ranking give undue emphasis to military measures at the expense of ‘softer’ conflict resolution and prevention actions? Measures of some policies, such as migration, are evolving with, for example, ‘brain-drain’ not as negative as was initially thought. Since data on support for research in tropical medicine and agriculture and other ‘development’ areas don’t seem to be accessible, the ‘technology’ scores generally reflect the ‘domestic’ R&D spend.

In some areas, the development-friendliness ‘performance’ of a government in a negotiation process – such as fisheries agreements – might be more important as a measure than whether or not it gives subsidies to a fishing fleet. Beyond the policies of a government, its ability to influence the processes by which policies are adopted by others – in European, OECD or UN forums – can also be more or less development friendly.

On further reflection, one wonders whether and how such an index of government commitment and policies might also reflect the wider commitment of different societies to development – in terms of public support. And what about the fast-growing small-scale ‘private’ cooperation projects by individuals and small citizen groups and perhaps the most widespread foreign experience of many individuals – tourism? Can these also be assessed on their development friendliness?

Story by Peter Ballantyne

The Commitment to Development Index ranks 21 high-income industrialized countries on how well their policies and actions support poor countries' efforts to build prosperity, good government, and security.



In 2007, for the second year running, the Netherlands comes in first on the strength of ample aid-giving, falling greenhouse gas emissions, and support for investment in developing countries..

The powerpoint presentations of David Roodman and Paul Hoebink are available on Slideshare.

The meeting was organized by CGD, Euforic, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and SID Netherlands. It was part of a series in different European cities.

More information on the CDI is on the CGD web site; The Dutch country paper is also available in English and Dutch [pdf format]

See also Euforic dossiers on aid effectiveness, coherence, Dutch development cooperation.