The Heiligendamm Process and the reform of global governance

Considering the challenges the world is facing today, including the financial, energy and climate crises, there is an urgent need for an inclusive global governance structure with a high-level body fully representing the world population.

A new discussion paper by the German Development Institute looks at the 'Heiligendamm Process' as the starting point for further discussions on global governance reform. Further it offers different models for a future global governance architecture.

The Heiligendamm Process, which emerged from Germany's G8 Presidency in 2007, was an attempt to intensify dialogue with the new emerging actors, namely Mexico, China, India, South Africa and Brazil (referred to as G5). However it was seen as open process and not as a step towards enlargement, which was rejected especially by the USA and Japan.

According to the author the global economic crisis brought the enlargement-option back on the agenda:

"While this high-level dialogue [the Heiligendamm Process] was geared to an informal exchange of views and experiences as well as to confidence-building, the global financial crisis now calls for rapid action and hard-and-fast arrangements."

The Process is seen as success in terms of trust-building. It also helped to form a confident and pro-active G5, which even came up with concrete policy proposals during the recent G20 Summit in London. After the first phase of the Heiligendamm Process participants now need to decide where this governance model should be going to.

The author proposes a new out-ward looking process which includes other global governance structures and at the same time urges the G8 to explicitly deal with the enlargement issue. This discussion should also consider the role of the G20 which proved to be effective during the recent crisis.

by Martin Behrens

See the Euforic newsfeed and dossier on governance

Global Perspectives on the Long March to Copenhagen

Shortly after the Bonn Climate Talks the new issue of 'Global Perspectives' focuses on the outcomes of this latest session towards a Post-2012 Agreement on Climate Change.

According to observers, the negotiations are still far from the expected outcomes. While official delegates declared that progress was made during the Bonn meeting, NGOs and the majority of developing countries disapprove such claims. According to them the USA are blocking any progress especially regarding the emission reduction targets. At the same time European Union governments' commitments remain unimpressive.

"While the U.S. is holding climate negotiations hostage, Japan and the EU appear to feel comfortable hanging on to Washington's apron-strings" an observer noted.

Equally alarmingly is the fact that developed countries fail to commit substantial amounts of money and technology cooperation to enable developing countries to cope with the effects of climate change.

Senior Adviser to the UN Secretary General Nitin Desai considers it a progress that countries at this stage agreed what they disagree about. However the principle of 'Common but Differentiated Responsibility' which holds developed countries historically accountable for climate change must not be undermined. If the industrialized world met its commitments, countries like India and China would be willing to do more. However Japan, Canada and some European states do not even honor their Kyoto targets.

Also in this issue an opinion article by Andrew F. Cooper and Gregory Chin who comment on the prospects of the G20 as new global governance structure. They warn to overemphasize the Trans-Atlantic leadership of the US and the UK which they see as being outdated and not reflecting the emergence of new actors. They also stress the importance of the BRIC-Group (Brazil, Russia, India and China) as a new voice of the developing countries.

See as well an article by Julio Godoy who puts the finger on Western hypocrisy when welcoming the ICC warrant against Sudan's al-Bashir and criticizing Zimbabwe's Mugabe and at the same time keeping close relations with other dictators in Angola, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea or the Republic of Congo. In his opinion governments in Europe and North America remain silent due to their economic interests in these countries' natural resources.

Global Perspectives is a bi-lingual (English/German) joint production by IPS Inter Press Service Europe and the Global Cooperation Council, published by Globalom Media. The monthly editions on various themes of international cooperation and development are downloadable for free.

See also the Euforic newsfeeds on IPS Europe, climate change and governance

by Martin Behrens

ÖFSE on New Private and State Donors

A recent Working Paper (pdf in German) of the Austrian Development Research Institute (ÖFSE) looks at the discourse on the 'New Donors' in development cooperation and assesses the impact of these new private and state actors on the global aid and governance system.

While the traditional (Western based) donors refer to the OECD indicators to describe and legitimize their aid, new donors have a rather different attitude towards these standards. This is ranking from a more or less loose reference (i.e. new European Member states or Israel) to clear opposition (i.e. China, India or Russia) to what is seen as a Western dominated system.

This is even amplified by their unclear role in the global aid and governance system. China or India, the biggest new state donors, both still have to deal with severe internal development problems while at the same time acting as donors in Asia and Africa. Additionally these countries can no longer be ignored by global governance arrangements taking into account their rise as global economic players. Combining cheap labor with a high investment in R&D they also show new success strategies for economic development. Last but not least the connection of economic interests with development programs poses additional challenges for the traditional aid system.

This makes it difficult to analyse the real impact of the new actors. Nonetheless the authors predict that the OECD paradigm regarding the definitions, categories and practices of aid can no longer be maintained in the future without taking into account the new donors' activities.

The paper also looks at the increasing private engagement in development. According to the World Bank private foundations contributed 5 to 7 Billion $-US in 2006 compared to 104 Billion $-US ODA. However, considering the stagnating public aid figures and the growing private investments there is a great awareness of these private activities.

The authors see the political and economic independence with a possibility for long-term engagement, the willingness to take higher risks compared to state actors, and the professionalization of private donors as rather positive. Their low experience in the field, their tendency to combine aid with public relations strategies can be seen as a challenge for the future. Furthermore the paper criticizes that money is not always spend were most needed which might have a negative influence on policy prioritisation in aid-dependent countries. This can result in a withdraw of resources from one sector in support of the sector prioritized by the private donor (i.e. personnel from basic health care to HIV/AIDS).

The authors conclude that more research is needed to assess the real impact of new private and state donors on the global development agenda.

By Martin Behrens

See also EADI's EDC2020 project on the New Drivers in Development Cooperation

Democracy promotion: No end of history

While democracy promotion became a 'Boom Industry' of International Cooperation in the 1990s, governance indicators show a negative global trend today. At the same time International Democracy Assistance is criticized for not showing measurable results.

A Briefing Paper of the German Development Institute looks at strategic challenges for Democracy Promotion and Assistance.

The authors come up with 10 recommendation:

1. Invest in research about the preconditions, catalysers and processes of democratization
2. Take regard of conflicting political targets
3. Ensure a coherent policy towards partners
4. Take regard of regional and local contexts
5. Take a strategic and long-term approach
6. Chose the right partners to support change
7. Be aware that the time of invention offers different opportunities, be flexible if change happens
   
8. Take the right measures at the right time (i.e. human rights before democratic elections)
9. Ensure coordination and synergies with other policy sectors
10. Take a holistic systemic approach for evaluation instead of looking only on project outputs

See the Euforic newsfeed and dossier on governance.

See also ICCO on Democratization and Peacebuilding

Aid from international NGOs: Blind spots on the aid allocation map?

Do international NGOs target poor countries when allocating aid? And do they focus on countries where governments fail? They don't, according to the PhD research of Dirk-Jan Koch, civil servant at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. NGOs spend more resources per poor person in lower middle income countries than in the poorest countries. For example, per poor person, more aid is allocated to Costa Rica and Chile than to Cote d'Ivoire. Tanzania (11 million people below the poverty line) receives 61 times more NGO aid than the Central African Republic (4 million people below the poverty line).

In his research, Koch uses a variety of quantitative and qualitative research techniques and data sets on aid allocations for 61 internationally operating NGOs from Europe, Canada, USA and Australia, to investigate a series of hypothesis about the behavior of NGOs.

He found that the policy choices of donors have an important influence on the countries chosen by NGOs to work in. They are less important when it comes to how active an NGO is in a country. His analysis shows, Koch claims, that NGOs follow governments and not the other way around. He also found that the quality of governance in a country does not seem to be a significant factor in any of this.

Not only do they all work in the same countries, within countries, NGOs also cluster and Koch analyses whether the factors that influenced the emergence of Silicon Valley play a similar role for Tanzania in "Serengeti Valley". He compares NGO aid and donor practices in Germany, Norway and the USA to test various hypothesis regarding the pattern of clustering. Is it risk aversion because of “marketization”? Or the degree of dependence on back donor? Does the emphasis on results lead to safe choices? A panel of Dutch researchers questioned Koch extensively on 26 February 2009 when he defended his PhD research. Questions remain but all panelists agreed that "this study is an important contribution to the debate."

Click To Play

by Rosien Herweijer

Links to articles (also in French) published on Koch’s research can be found at http://en.scientificcommons.org/dirk-jan_koch

See also the Euforic newsfeeds on civil society and cooperation policy

Human Rights Watch Report 2009: Taking back the initiative from human rights spoiler

In an introductory essay to the 2009 Human Rights Watch Report, Kenneth Roth (Executive Director of Human Rights Watch) argues that Governments' respect for human rights should not only by measured by their standards regarding the protection of their own people but also by the way they defend human rights in relations with other countries.

He argues that the world faces a situation where countries with rather poor human rights records lead the inter-governmental human rights agenda resulting in the actual defection of standards hiding behind claims for sovereignty, non-interference or Southern solidarity. Their activities have deeply compromised the activity of the UN Human Rights Council and other institutions.

Governments which traditionally cared about human rights have largely abandoned the field or are sidelined in UN venues and the Security Council. For the US, this was a consequence of the fight against terrorism and the negative human rights record of the Bush administration.

The EU, says the aurthor, often fights alone, which was successful on few occasions like the Russia-Georgia conflict or Eastern Chad . However it misses opportunities to protect human rights more broadly in other places of the world.

"EU diplomats spend so much time negotiating a minutely detailed consensus among themselves […], that by the time they reach agreement among all 27 member states, they are exhausted, with no energy or flexibility to fashion a consensus among other potential allies. To avoid restarting the painstaking process of building a new EU consensus, European diplomats must avoid genuine give-and-take and instead try to convince others to accept the agreed-upon EU position without amendment."

Furthermore, the EU's weak stances towards human rights violations by the Bush administration lead to accusations that it applies double standards.

Nonetheless the EU and the US are not the only countries protecting human rights. They find strong support in some governments in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

Roth calls on the human rights defending governments in the West to return to a practice where they do what they preach. He furthermore calls for them to reach out to Southern countries with progressive human rights positions and commit, with them, to fight violations abroad. Last but not least, he calls on progressive Southern nations to break with the 'bloc' mentality by which they vote with their own region although they hold different views.

The 19th Human Rights Watch Report is an annual review of human rights practices. It summarizes key human rights issues in more than 90 countries and territories worldwide.

by Martin Behrens

Listen also the audio commentaries regarding the situation of some selected countries.

Sign up for the Euforic human rights or democratisation newsfeeds.

Natural resources - blessing or a curse?

Speaking at the GDN conference in Kuwait, Albert Zeufack argues that natural resources can be a blessing for development, but most of the time they are a curse:

Click To Play

Partnership between local authorities and NGOs: no more clichés!

Source: Concord Flash, nr. 56, November/December 2008

After governance in 2006 and climate change in 2007, in November 2008 the European Development Days focused on the role played in development by local authorities. A recurring, high-level event, these Days – organised by the European Commission in collaboration with the presidency of the European Union – attract 3,000 participants from all continents, from heads of State to NGOs and experts. This year there were debates on global issues such as the financial crisis and the G20, and the food crisis, but they centred mainly on local issues, such as the importance of local authorities when it comes to fighting poverty.

Over 40 panel discussions addressed development issues such as: the food crisis, the financial crisis, the Millennium Development Goals, climate change, the impact of the media in bringing about democratic governance, and the importance of local authorities.

CONCORD and its members either took part in or helped to organise 18 of these lectures and other events. One that stands out is the panel discussion organised by CONCORD and the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, which represents some 100,000 towns and
regions in countries belonging to the Council of Europe, on collaboration between civil society and local authorities. Ms Tavares Gomes, Mayor of São Vicente in Cape Verde; Mr Elngo Mbassi, Secretary-General of United Cities and Local Governments of Africa; Mr Robert Bodja, coordinator of North-South activities for Luxembourg's Climate Alliance; Tara Brace-John,
who has worked for a long time with Dalit women in India, and is in charge of governance issues with the NGO One World Action, and René Billaz, Chair of Agronomists and Vets Without Borders, gave concrete examples of this partnership and challenged clichés on both NGOs and local authorities, especially on the ground. Click here to find out more about this conference

To view the talks given by Jean-Pierre Elngo Mbassi on the financial crisis: http://blip.tv/file/1484092 and by Robert Bodja on aid effectiveness: http://blip.tv/file/1484084

Next year's Development Days will be held in Stockholm (Sweden) from 21 to 23 October, and will focus on citizenship and development. One for your diaries!

For further information: (aphilippart@concordeurope.org)

See also Euforic's newsfeeds on EU cooperation, and on Concord

International Conference on Financing for Development to Review the Implementation of the Monterrey Consensus: Doha, Qatar, 29 Nov -2 Dec 2008

Concord press release, 4 November 2008

This short press briefing sets out the key issues, and provides critical analysis of political negotiations around the financing for development agenda.

1. What is the Financing for Development Meeting in Doha?

• Governments from across the world will meet in Doha, Qatar between 29 November and 2 December under a UN process to discuss financing for development. The Qatari government is organising a high-level retreat on 28 November, right before the start of the Conference. Forty to fifty heads of state and/ or government are expected to attend.

• The Financing for Development agenda is a recognition of the fact that structural flaws in the system are preventing people in poor countries from enjoying growth and development. This message is even more pertinent in the current context of the financial crisis which has hit the poor so hard.

• In 2002, the European Union agreed to the Monterrey Consensus on development finance setting out commitments in six key areas. These have been under review through issue-focused hearings held between February and May):
  

• 1. Mobilising domestic resources
• 2. Foreign direct investment,
• 3. International trade,
• 4. Financial and technical cooperation,
• 5. External debt,
• 6. Systemic issues

• In Doha, governments will meet again to reflect on progress, new challenges and to agree an outcome document setting out commitments on these crucial issues (see below for analysis of negotiations)

2. What are the issues?

The Financing for Development agenda is about redistribution, and rebalancing the global financial structures for development, given striking evidence on how financial flows from Southern countries to the North often offset flows from rich to poor countries.

But what we see is governments failing to carry out the reforms that will really change the unjust system currently in place.

Key issues of concern for civil society organisations in Europe are:

• Reform of the international financial institutions
• Regulation of tax havens/secrecy jurisdictions
• Upgrading the UN tax committee to an intergovernmental body
• Official Development Aid and Debt
• Innovative sources of finance

3. What is at stake?

Rich countries, including the EU, are showing weak commitment to the Doha process. While the European states of the G20 have managed to reshuffle their agendas to be present in Washington, it is yet unclear which EU heads of government and/ or state will be go to Doha. Once again, the poor of the world were forgotten at the Washington meeting. Half-hearted piecemeal reforms, as the ones suggested at the G20, won’t suffice.

EU governments should live up to their commitments and show strong will to implement them. They should also show strong leadership to avoid the outcome of the Doha Conference is just “business as usual”. In order to rewrite the rules of the global financial system and make it work for development, governments in Doha should:

• Reaffirm their aid commitments and agree upon timetables to deliver 0.7% of their GNP to ODA by 2015. It is urgent to avoid any temptations to decrease aid flows.
• Commit to combat illicit financial flows and tax havens, which drain between US$500 billion and US$800 billion every year from developing countries. Some concrete decisions on this area should include:
• A code of conduct on cooperation in combating international tax evasion and avoidance;
• International implementation of country by country reporting standards for transnational companies, to increase transparency and curb transfer mispricing;
• Strengthening the United Nations Tax Committee and converting it into an intergovernmental entity.

• Recognise that debt is still a problem for developing countries, which may worsen in light of the current crisis. Governments should agree to set up an international fair and transparent debt work-out mechanism based upon the principles of shared responsibility among creditors and debtors.
• Agree to launch an inclusive and transparent process to overhaul the global financial architecture, which works for equitable growth and poverty reduction. Quick fixes along the lines of those agree at the G20 Summit in Washington won’t do. The International Financial Institutions should be thoroughly reformed to ensure full participation of developing countries; and new regulatory regimes should be set up to make sure that financial markets work for all.

4. Analysis of negotiations

• Governments have been meeting once a week for several months in New York to battle over an outcome document to be published at the end of the Conference, but ultimately, agreement has not been possible. Negotiations are advancing at a snail’s pace. Potential agreements are still very unclear and any outcome could be expected.
• Japan, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (JUSCANZ) are banding together to block more progressive reforms.
• EU members are in disagreement over key proposals such as tax. Although the EU wanted to portray itself as the link between the JUSCANZ and the G77 (the developing countries), the reality is that it is more and more removed from the G77 positions and strategies and will have a hard time in performing a brokering role.
• G77 countries are refusing to come behind the weak commitments of European and industrialised nation governments. Whether they will be ready to compromise a weaker text or will prefer “no deal than a bad deal” is yet to be seen.
• As time is running, it is unlikely that governments will manage to get an agreement before Doha, as they were hoping. Key negotiations will have to be continued in Doha. The final outcome of the conference is still up in the air.
  

5. Why this is important?

• Doha provides a window of opportunity because it acknowledges the unjust nature of international financial system, and the often severe impact it can have on developing countries. In a matter of few months, rich countries have been able to mobilise $3 trillion to bail out their banks, thirty times the $104 billion channelled last year for development aid. The risk that governments will “default” on their aid commitments is increasingly high. Poor countries should not pay for a crisis created by rich countries.
• This impact has been made all too clear by the recent crises in the global economic system which have hit poor countries hard, in particular the impact of food prices and the prominence of this issue in the media over recent months has highlighted the linkages between poverty, and global economic trends driven by an unfair system. Among other reasons, the food prices were spurred by unprecedented speculation on agricultural commodities. This is just one of the numerous examples that the global financial system should be regulated to avoid that speculation threatens basic human rights.
• It is becoming increasingly clear that not only have increases in global flows of capital failed to correlate with poverty reduction, but also that economic growth in developing countries does not necessarily mean growth for the poor, often it can even mean greater in-country inequality.
• Aid, which has seen increased commitments from donor governments in recent years, is one way of addressing these problems, but it has long been recognised that it cannot be effective without wider systemic change to the global economic system.
  

6. Spokespersons and contacts in Doha
• Jasmine Burnley AidWatch Coordinator, CONCORD Secretariat, +32 473 47 88 06
• Nuria Molina, Policy and Advocacy Officer, EURODAD, +32 473 41 08 34
• Sasja Bokkerink, Oxfam Novib, +31.6.46273688
• Jean Saldana, CIDSE, +32 495-227579

7. Resources on some of the key issues:

• UN website on Financing for Development
• Civil society participation at the conference

Documents:

• Position of the European Union in Doha
• Monterrey consensus
• Eurodad’s new briefings on IMF conditionality, aid effectiveness and responsible finance: Taxation and financing for development; European agenda to fight capital flight; Speculation undermines the right to food
• New principles and rules to build an economic system that works for people and the planet
• CIDSE policy paper on the Doha Review

Video testimonies

• Jean-Pierre Elong Mbassi of United Cities and Local Governments in Africa expressed in English his concern about the future of aid disbursements in the light of the financial crisis

Click To Play

• George Ehusani from Nigeria talks in English about the realities of EU aid to developing countries

Click To Play

• Robert Bodja from Alliance for the climate (Luxembourg) on ODA and aid effectiveness. In French

Click To Play

• José Brito, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Cooperation and Communication of the Republic of Cap Verde in French on the impact of financing development and financial crisis in Cap Verde

Click To Play

Check out Euforic's newsfeed on Concord

A Federal Europe – enhanced European governance to face global challenges

Last weekend, I attended the Annual Meeting of the ‘Union of European Federalists’ (UEF), the organization is the umbrella of 20 European Organizations which are united to achieve a more democratic and federal Europe.

The ‘Union of European Federalists’ “was founded shortly after the World War II with the belief that only a European Federation, based on the idea of unity in diversity, could overcome the division of the European continent that caused the suffering and destruction of the two World Wars.” (1)

50 years later, Europe is facing several global challenges including migration; climate change; world poverty; security; energy and recently the financial crisis. The idea to enhance common decision-making by creating a federal government is more pressing than ever before.

Virgilio Dastoli (Director of the EU Commission’s Representation in Italy), pointed out that the global dimension of the challenges excludes unilateral solutions. The choice is not anymore between national or European sovereignty but between European sovereignty and no sovereignty at all.

Taking the example of immigration, Dastoli criticized that the issue is mainly seen through a security lens while it is in fact a question of integration, considering the demand of workers in the light of upcoming demographic changes.

Philipp Agathonos, Delegate to the EU Civilian Crisis Management Committee at the Austrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, pointed out that immigration pressure on Europe will increase from the Asian continent, he predicted dramatic migration caused by climate change. In this case, no sea - as there is now between Europe and Africa - will stop the population flow, thus a European approach to integrate immigrants into Europe is urgently needed.

Several resolutions concerning a Common European Foreign Policy were discussed and adopted during the UEF Meeting, among them a resolution dealing with the current food crisis and world poverty.

The resolution underlines the importance of a global right to food in the fight to alleviate world poverty. To achieve a stronger European commitment to global institutions, specifically the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is essential. A world authority dealing with food production, buffer stocks, agricultural trade, research and innovation, health and environmental protection related to food production is needed.

Furthermore the UEF promotes regional integration initiatives which can lead to a stronger coordination among its members, a stronger voice of marginalized regions in the developing world and in the long-run to a world federal government.

Admittedly, federalist ideas are rather visionary, some might even say utopian. The European Union is in a state of institutional deadlock after both a constitutional treaty and the modified Lisbon Treaty failed in national referenda and it shows no signs of a quick recovery. Currently the chances for a second referendum in Ireland are low, so is the possibility that such a poll will bring more favorable results. Furthermore one should not forget, that other rather Euro-skeptic member states, like the Czech Republic, the UK and apparently Austria still need to ratify.

Consequently one should look for alternative ways to save the core institutional changes of Lisbon which are so important for effective European governance and its enhanced role to tackle world problems.

Taking into account that common European action and a single European voice are indispensable preconditions to deal with the global challenges we are facing today, it is necessary to save the treaty innovations regarding a common European foreign policy no matter if the Lisbon treaty succeeds in the nearer future.

One proposition might be to draft separate treaties which include the crucial areas of cooperation, which than could be signed by the willing member states. Taking into consideration that most EU members ratified Lisbon, such a step would only exclude few countries, i.e. Ireland, which should have the option to participate whenever it is willing to do so. This way all the others might move forward to closer cooperation.

It is important to communicate such an option publicly. The recent referenda did not offer any real alternative to a ‘yes’ vote which was a huge democratic deficit. Thus the proposition of an alternative way of progress would also show respect towards the European citizenry which needs to see that their vote can make a difference.

It remains doubtful that Europe will hold its influential position in the world governance system if it cannot show its ability for common foreign policy decision-making and speak with a single voice. Other emerging countries are already waiting in the pipeline to take over if the European Union cannot bring its act together towards a more democratic and federal union.

by Martin Behrens

Global governance for sustainable development

The first plenary session which took place during the EADI General Annual Conference (24-28 June, Geneva) was dedicated to

"Global Governance for Sustainable Development: the Challenge of Policy Coherence among International Organizations"

Chaired by Desmond McNeill (EADI) the panel was composed by Kermal Dervis (UNDP), Juan Somavia (ILO), Bertrand Ramcharan (Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies, Geneva) and Ngaire Woods (Global Economic Governance Programme, Oxford).

Kemal Dervis described the world economy being in a state of crisis with rapid growth rates and a power shift towards emerging economies. He predicted that the raise of global commodity prices including food and energy will set back the global fight against poverty. However, this could have been avoided with an attempt towards global policy coordination, which would be more useful for developing countries than increased aid funds.

Juan Somavia focused on the social dimension of a sustainable economic development. He underlined that it is necessary to replace the neo-liberal discours by a vision focusing on sustainable development. Somavia was convinced that political leadership towards such an economic model will not appear without a strong civil society movement pushing governments into the right direction.

Listen to Mr. Somavias plea in his own words:




Complementing Mr. Somavias remarks, Bertrand Ramcharan, former Acting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, stressed the importance of a global human rights protection system to achieve global justice and equality. Nevertheless most nations are very reluctant since such an institution directly concerns internal aspects of governance. Furthermore he called on the UN to enforce crimes against humanity also in peace situations, which would apply for countries like Zimbabwe or Myanmar.

Ngaire Wood presented some lessons learned from the earlier global economic crisis in the 1980s in order to draw conclusions for the current situation. She promoted the concept of subsidiarity to face future challenges. However there is a tendency to either see all solutions on a national level or to overcharge global institutions by trying to solve everything internationally.

Ms Woods concluded that the global economy has become more unequal, more insecure and less governed than some years before. Former world powers do no longer have the right to sit at the top table but need to share the control of the leadership and decision-making.

Desmond McNeill reflected on the discussions after the presentations of the keynote speakers. Listen to his words:



by Martin Behrens

See the Euforic dossier and newsfeed on governance, as well as the newsfeed on trade.

Read more stories from the conference and visit the conference blog.

Oxfam warns G8 of credibility crunch

Oxfam just released a new report warning the G8 of a credibility loss regarding its policies . The organization predicts that the MDGs might not be achieved if current trends continue.

“By 2010 we need to see $150bn in additional high-quality annual aid in order to reach the MDGs. […] rich-country leaders more commonly prefer to hide behind promises, polemic, and short-term self-interests. […] (They) have produced nearly a trillion dollars to bail out their reckless banks, yet cannot find $30bn in aid.”

Oxfam calls on the G8 and rich-country leaders to:

• stop burning food and start supporting poor farmers
• mend broken aid promises
• support health, education, water and sanitation for all
• support health, education, water and sanitation for all
• stop harming and start helping regarding climate change
• put women and girls first
• prioritize security for sustainable development
  

More about Oxfam's G8 campaign

Global Perspectives: Focus on Latin America

The May issue of the magazine 'Global Perspectives' focuses on political changes in Latin America and other questions of global development.

The magazine includes an analysis of the left turn in Latin and Central American politics and challenges to the continent, including drugs, crime and the pressing social problems. Short articles deal with the situation in Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Honduras.

In an opinion article Ramesh Jaura (IPS Europe) writes about the international food crisis.

"[H]unger 'revolts' have surprised many. Yet, they are not like a bolt from the blue. They are man made, a consequence, among others, of the neglect and underinvestment that the agricultural and rural sector have suffered over the past 20 years."

Only 4 percent of ODA is committed to agriculture in developing countries despite the fact that 75 percent of the world's poor live in rural areas. The author calls for a long-term strategy to address the crisis, which should include an increase in ecosystems productivity and pro-poor policies of climate change adaption which counts agriculture as a priority.

Inge Kaul (Herti School of Governance) asks why there are no concrete political responses , including practical actions, to deal with challenging issues of climate change and energy supply.

According to her analysis , foreign and security policy was not adapted to globalisation and still reflects the political logic of nation states with relatively closed borders. Kaul demands a paradigm change in international cooperation which accepts the interdependence of the world state system. The G-8 system and its "5 nation outreach programme" is not sufficient to solve pressing problems. Kaul proposes the foundation of a new leadership forum and the development of a new UN 3.0 system which expands the new norm of the 'responsibility to protect' for the environment.

An interview with Ernest Corea, former chair of the Commonwealth Select Committee on Communications and Development, examines the need for a South-South News Agency. Corea complains that Northern Agencies:

"[...] are conflict-oriented. They also neglect trends in developing countries, as opposed to 'breaking news', and they are not committed to enabling Southern countries to understand each other better and learn from each other's experience."

Corea names the IPS as a good example of a South-oriented service which could be further developed into a great South-South project.

Global Perspectives is a bi-lingual (English/German) publication by IPS Europe. It releases monthly editions on various themes of international cooperation and development and is available for free download.

See also Euforic newsfeeds on Latin America and from IPS Europe.

by Martin Behrens

Zimbabwean civil society fear rigged elections and postelection violence

Source: CIDSE Press release, 11 March 2008

At a press conference this morning, organized by the international network of catholic development organizations CIDSE and ZimbabweWatch, a delegation of leading civil society representatives from Zimbabwe expressed deep concern about the probable outcome and conduct of the election in Zimbabwe due March 29.

"The incumbent government is illegitimate; under the current conditions these elections will be neither fair nor free. If the people had a say, Mugabe would lose. But we fear that the government will ruthlessly use fraud and intimidation to steal the elections again", said John Stewart, Director of NOVASC, a human rights NGO. "With things getting worse every day, there is urgency in a breakthrough towards political transition in Zimbabwe right now."

While Mugabe is absolutely determined to win his reelection and seeks to silence opposition and media, arbitrary arrests, beatings and torture of members of the opposition, media and civil society are common. "With the regime realizing that its grip on power is waning, we are very afraid of a violent retaliation, as Mugabe will use any means to cling to power", said Wilbert Mandinde from the Media Institute of Southern Africa.

The situation in Zimbabwe is that dire, that "people are looking towards any possibility for change. If the current Mugabe regime lives on, there is absolutely no hope for change", said Maureen Kademaunga, Gender and Human Rights officer of the National Student Union (ZINASU). "What we need is transition towards a new kind of government, with principled leaders, who really are accountable to the people".

The civil society leaders, gathered in Brussels, called on the EU and African states to undertake joint and tougher actions, based on common principles, to guarantee a democratic Zimbabwe. Takavafira Zhou, President of the Progressive Teachers Union, who was recently severely tortured at a ZANU-PF headquarters, said "Europe must not fail Zimbabwe, but work together with African countries on a solution. The international efforts in the Kenyan crisis have clearly shown the potential of coherent international intervention."

Growing opposition to President Robert Mugabe's regime, due to economic hardship and growing divisions in his ruling ZANU-PF, means that the result of the elections is more uncertain than ever. With Simba Makoni, a former Finance Minister and opposition candidate from a faction within his own party, and the long serving opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai (MDC) running against him, Mugabe faces one of the most serious challenges since he has come to power after independence in 1980.

Political failures have been crippling the economy, caused unemployment rates above 80 % and ushered in an unheard-of inflation of 100.000 %. Affordable basic commodities, even water and fuel, have disappeared from the shops. Zimbabwe, once a success story, has become a grave humanitarian emergency where 80% of the population life in squalid conditions and have an extreme low life expectancy of 39 years.

At its last meeting, March 10, the Council of the European Union (GAERC) has repeated its concern about the humanitarian, political and economic situation in Zimbabwe, which, according to the Council, "may endanger the holding of free and fair elections".

For more information contact Pascal Richard, ZimbabweWatch, or Philipp Rohrer, CIDSE

See also the Euforic newsfeed and dossier on governance and democratisation

Global governance between utopia and reality

The magazine 'Global Perspectives' published its March issue under the headline: Global Governance between Utopia and Reality. It was inspired by the conferences series “Global Resource Management: A challenge for peace, development and environment” organized by the German Development and Peace Foundation (SEF).

James M. Boughton (IMF) and Colin I. Bradford (Brookings Institution) look at the current global governance system, concuding that it is outdated, since it does not represent the real global power situation, and is fragmented and too specialized which lead to lack of effectiveness and spatial thinking.

“what we have today is a multiplicity of independent actors, both public and private, each pursuing its own objectives and priorities, with its own clientele and constituency, with its own technical language and organizational culture, with its own mandate and specialized focus” they go on concluding that “[s]pecialized technical expertise by itself is unlikely to be fully effective if it is not guided by a global and holistic vision.”

According to the authors a transition of the global system towards reformed institutions and new governance mechanisms is needed to respond effectively to urgent global challenges.

Carin Smaller (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Switzerland) agues for the same cause looking at the global free trade agenda. In her opinion the current system is neglecting the people:

“the negotiators in Geneva continue to produce text for new trade rules that do not support a model of development that most people are asking for”.

She advocates closer cooperation between the Bretton Woods institutions and the UN to give considerations to the complexity of trade and development.

Joyce Aryee (Ghana Chamber of Mines) looks at the marginalized role of Africa in resource governance despite its rich natural resources. She refuses Western explanations that corrupt regimes and war-lords are abusing African assets, because it ignores the role of the West in maintaining African conflicts and supporting corrupt leaders.

Global Perspectives is a bi-lingual (English/German) publication by IPS Europe. It releases monthly editions on various themes of international cooperation and development and is available for free download.

See also Euforic newsfeeds governance and from IPS Europe.

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

Democracy and Development - Searching for a 'new us'

The Hague, 13 September: The SID Netherlands 2007 Lecture Series on Democracy and Development culminated today in a one-day conference hosted by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [related story]

A full house heard Minister of Development Cooperation Bert Koenders explore different dimensions of democracy development and the implications for his policies.

Thereafter, different speakers and a lively audience explored what former Dutch Foreign Minister Bot called the ‘three D’s’ – development, defense, and democracy, and the often complex relations among these.

One clear conclusion is that a ‘3D’ perspective is hardly sufficient to comprehend the richness and complexity of the topic. This is especially the case when you delve into different local and national situations and cultures – and even it seems when you delve into the international data often used to explain how democracy and development can be achieved. As keynote speaker Professor William Easterly argued: “we just don’t know!”

To generate the needed multi-dimensional perspectives, democracy and development communities are felt to need more ‘searchers’ – individuals with the freedom to “figure out” and learn from their own questions, answers, causalities and actions.

Where will we find these development/democracy searchers? Certainly not just in established networks and experts. Even in the most difficult places, panelist Bossuyt suggests, we “don’t know the rich tissue that exists in every fragile state”… a richness that can be set free to tackle local to global issues and dilemmas.

According to Bossuyt, moving in this direction requires a more effective dialogue that explores what democracy really means in different local situations and then a "reversal of the fundamentals of the way in which we work" to support democracy … [listen below]

Click To Play

Concluding that "nobody is too poor to be free", Easterly urged us to trust ordinary people and give them the freedom to search - to test, to fail, to try different courses - that is democracy.

This commitment to empowerment is perhaps where democracy promotion and development cooperation come together. As democracy provides freedom to search, debate and innovate, so development gives space and resources to take action.

The search for models and mechanisms was echoed by Minister Koenders. Drawing on the ideas and lessons generated through the lecture series he drew participants’ attention to the continuing search for effective democratic models in the Netherlands. He suggested that the search for “social cohesion and the integration of new citizens into a common identity – a new ‘us’ – is one of the biggest challenges in deepening Dutch democracy.” This search for a “new us” is an effort by citizens, state and political parties to re-discover their common interests, through inclusive processes that give voice – and freedom to question and search – to all.

In a way the challenge in developing countries is to make spaces where they too can search for and build their own versions of this ‘new us’ – creating democratic assets instead of looking to overcome democratic deficits. Koenders emphasized that these processes in developing countries need to reflect the realities of the poorest and seek to include them in emerging new dialogues.

What does this mean for Dutch policies? The Minister summarized his major policy directions under four headings: "a more political conception of good governance; a democracy and development agenda; and more focus on fragile states and women’s rights."

Adriano Malache from NIMD Mozambique reacts to the day’s discussions:

Click To Play

The conference was organized by the Netherlands chapter of the Society for International Development (SID). It was co-organized with the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy.

Euforic web page on governance

by Peter Ballantyne

Democracy and Development – Giving ourselves the freedom to trust

The Hague, 13 September: In his key note address to the SID conference on democracy and development, four main points on “freedom and development” by former World Bank economist William Easterly triggered discussions throughout the day. [related story]

He first argued that democracy is generally a better long term bet for countries, in terms of economic growth and per capita income. It is no accident he argued that countries with low per capita income are non-democratic while countries with higher incomes are mostly democracies.

Second, he described democracy in terms of the freedoms of individuals – and a country - to reason, question, act, trade and choose their leadership and governance. While economic growth contributes to development, ‘growth of reasoning’ contributes to democracy. Both need to be unleashed. Emphasizing that “nobody is too poor to be free,” he argued that viewing poor people as unable to handle freedom/democracy is not part of a freedom agenda; nor is “telling the poor what to do” part of democracy.

Third, he concluded that experts – various kinds – do not have the reliable answers to guide countries towards sustainable development and democracy. In the absence of expert answers, he called for “ordinary people” to be given the freedom to “figure out” what they want to do.

Finally, the way these citizens and their countries are supported – though development cooperation or democracy building - is itself an exercise in democracy. Freedom includes freedom from foreign control. Too many conditions and advice from the supporters, even well-intentioned, precisely reduces the freedoms of the beneficiaries. According to Easterly: “If a government is democratically accountable to it citizens, then it should get aid with no strings.” Governments comprising warlords or aspiring gangsters, should be treated very differently.

Echoing participant Njeri Kabeberi who urged that we “give ourselves the freedom to trust,” Easterly described such freedom as a kind of education, he called on participants to promote and support initiatives that let others take charge of their destinies. Support means trusting others and letting them learn, and giving them space to make mistakes. As soon as you interfere to make ‘corrections’, they lose their freedom.

This debate will doubtless continue as the development community unites around aid effectiveness agendas - where donors work in harmony and with governments towards agreed joint assistance strategies - that some might see restricting the freedoms proposed by Easterly.

NIMD partners Njeri Kabeberi (Kenya) and Augustine Magolowondo (Malawi) react on the day’s discussions:

Click To Play

Click To Play

The conference was organized by the Netherlands chapter of the Society for International Development (SID). It was co-organized with the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy.

Read more views by Professor Easterly on his web site

Euforic web page on governance

by Peter Ballantyne

G8 Reform and the Heiligendamm Process

After 32 years of existence the G8 showed its ability to accommodate change. However the elite forum of industrialized countries today needs to deal with power shift in global relations towards emerging market countries. Without full participation of China, India and Brazil satisfactory answers to global problems cannot be found. Furthermore the Group of Eight looses output legitimacy since it is not fully capable to deal with new issues such as development needs or trade regimes.

A working paper by the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) looks back on the history of the organisation. Furthermore it provides a comprehensive literature review of papers discussing G7/8 performance and reform proposals. The work is strongly focusing on the L20 initiative, which suggests turning the G20 forum of finance ministers into a group of 20 on leader’s level.

Nonetheless the L20 initiative involves a group which might be to big to function efficiently. Thus at the end of 2006 a new concept of a G14 emerged, including the current G8 plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa and Egypt. This is already close to the currently implanted format of the G8+5 (also known as G8 + outreach countries (O5)) which was also applied at the Heiligendamm Summit. Here, beside the G8, five emerging economies (China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa) were invited.

To enhance dialog with emerging economies the G8 summit in Heiligendamm agreed to lunch a new form of cooperation called the Heiligendamm Process. The process aims to find common solutions in the following areas:

• „Promoting and protecting innovation;

• Strengthening the freedom of investment by means of an open investment climate, including strengthening the principles of corporate social responsibility;

• Determining joint responsibilities for development, focussing specifically on Africa;

• Joint access to know-how to improve energy efficiency and technology co-operation, with the aim of contributing to reducing CO2 emissions.”

According to the summit website the dialogue is to be launched in the second half of 2007. The OECD is going to provide a platform for dialogue and a first process report will be presented at the 2008 G8 Summit in Japan.

In the latest issue of the magazine Development+Cooperation Jens Martens, director of the European Office of the Global Policy Forum, strongly criticises this approach. He argues that:

“[a]ccepting a few additional members into its ranks would not make the exclusive club of G8 nations more representative and transparent. In this respect, the G8’s attempt to commit the O5 countries to “joint responsibility for development, with particular attention on Africa” is strange. It looked as if old and new donors were staking their claims – indeed, without even consulting the African nations affected.”

Additionally Andrew F. Cooper associate director of the CIGI declares in the same magazine that it’s not even clear that the emerging economies are willing to stay associated with the G8.

“The G8’s future relevance – both in terms of making the global political architecture more inclusive and setting the international agenda – will depend on the O5 countries’ willingness and ability to participate. Such cooperation, however, may well be contingent on how this initiative fits into other complex negotiation processes through the UN and the WTO.“

Story by Martin Behrens

CONCORD at the EU-ACP Joint Parliamentary Assembly

The Joint Parliamentary Assembly brought together parliamentarians from ACP countries with Members of the European Parliament to discuss the issue of governance in a hearing on 21 March 2007. CONCORD had the opportunity to sent two representatives: Angela Haynes, from HelpAge International and representing BOND, who presented the European NGO perspectives, and Paul Samangassou, Incoming Executive Secretary of Caritas Africa, who presented perspectives from African civil society.

Angela Haynes emphasised the importance of good governance for sustainable development and highlighted the need for a European Union concept of good governance to be based on international human rights law, to promote domestic accountability and to include an international dialogue for all countries to share learning and best practice. She also raised key concerns highlighted in the Cotonou Working Group's paper "Whose Governance", calling for clarification on the criteria, indicators and forms of measurement to be used in the "governance profiles" which will assess a country's performance and its eligibility for funds from the 2.7 billion Euro incentive tranche. She stressed the need to work within the framework of the Cotonou Agreement to ensure real partnership between the ACP and EU countries in developing an owned good governance agenda, and real participation by parliaments and civil society, including the most marginalised.

Paul Samangassou highlighted some of the negative consequences of poor governance including abuse of power due to lack of government accountability and elections which are not fair or transparent. He identified the need for increased participation by citizens in decision-making in order to achieve good governance. The role for civil society organisations (CSO) in this is to create spaces to facilitate participation by citizens, but they need to work with public institutions. He gave the example of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: while this is an example of how CSOs can play a role, it is not enough in terms of good governance.

The ensuing debate was wide-ranging and included a discussion on the role of governance in the Cotonou Agreement, the ACP's understanding of good governance, the African Peer Review Mechanism and need for best practice examples, and the role of CSOs. Some ACP parliamentarians criticised CSO criticism and monitoring of governments, arguing that they should work with their governments instead. Others welcomed the distinct role of CSOs in ensuring participation, accountability and scrutiny of government, but there was agreed recognition of the distinct roles played by civil society and parliaments. There was consensus on the fact that donor funds should not go to corrupt governments, but also concern that EU member states need to address their responsibility in causing or perpetuating bad governance in ACP countries.

Angela Haynes concluded that European NGOs fulfill a range of roles, but one very important one is holding their governments and the EC to account for their actions and behaviour in relations to partners in the South. While NGOs are not in favour of externally imposed conditionality, they do support conditionality from below, where calls for governance reforms by broad-based coalitions of in-country actors including parliamentarians and civil society are supported by external donors. For his part, Paul Samangassou concluded that the role of parliaments and CSOs are complimentary, as was demonstrated in Cameroon where CSOs organised workshops to raise parliamentarians' awareness on issues relating to the EPAs. CSOs have also stepped in in situations where governments have not been capable of playing their role, taking on their functions.

For further information: Angela Haynes, EU Representative HelpAge International: ahaynes@helpageinternational.org

Source: CONCORD Flash - March 2007.

See also Euforic dossiers on ACP-EU cooperation and governance.