European Development Cooperation from Maastricht until today: Institutional reforms are not met by political commitment

A new working paper by the Austrian Foundation for International Development (ÖFSE) analyses the European Development Cooperation from the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 until today. The author contrasts the institutional progress in the EU Development Cooperation Framework with the lack of political commitment to make good use of it.

Since the Maastricht Treaty the various instruments in EC Development Cooperation were reduced to an acceptable level which helped to improve consistency and effectiveness of European external relations. Institutional changes are far from being perfect but nevertheless they can help to achieve the growing ambitions of EU Development Cooperation since the 1990s. However, the various commitments dealing with the political aspects of EU Development Cooperation seem to contradict the process of institutional reform.

Looking at the EU Policy towards the ACP countries, Latin America, Asia and the EU Neighbourhood the author shows various examples for these failed commitments. He concludes:

"It is not to be forgotten that although institutions can sketch out a pathway to development, it is still the people working in the institutions that make policy. Currently Parliamentarians and particularly Commissioners shape the policies and in the end, the heads of the member countries have the final say. Very much depends upon their will, dedication and assertiveness."

By Martin Behrens

See the Euforic newsfeed and dossier on EC Development Cooperation and its management.

See also our dossiers and newsfeeds for the EC policy with ACP, Latin America, Asia and the EU Neighbourhood.

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

Development effectiveness versus aid effectiveness

With a few weeks to go until the Accra Forum, discussions on the effectiveness of aid are close to the peak. However as a new paper by OEFSE (pdf in German) observes, they tend revolve around issues of technical-operative implementation of development programs rather than more fundamental issues like the usefulness of development policy, structural pre-conditions of North-South relations or new challenges for international cooperation.

The paper by Clemens Six discusses the UNDP concept of Development Effectiveness which

"reflects the extent to which an institution or intervention has brought about targeted change in a country or the life of the individual beneficiary. Development effectiveness is influenced by various factors, beginning with the quality of project design and ending with the relevance and sustainability of desired results” [UNDP 2001]

According to the author, the concept is much broader with Aid Effectiveness actually being just one aspect of a more complex framework. Looking on the diverse definitions of development and effectiveness, the paper challenges the reader to reflect on mainstream concepts and to take other issues like the 'Right to Development', 'Commitment to Development' and micro-level effectiveness and empowerment into consideration.

by Martin Behrens

See Euforic newsfeed on Aid Effectiveness or more news from ÖFSE.

Brain drain: consequences for developing countries

A recent paper by the Austrian research institute for international development (ÖFSE) describes policies of the UN, EU and OECD regarding migration and the consequences of 'brain drain' for developing countries.

All three organisations agree on certain demands regarding an international migration policy including:

• the promotion of regular and the fight against illegal migration
• an improved migration management
• stronger connection between migration and development
• increased coherence between the related policies
• promotion of circular migration, a stronger usage of remittance and enhanced cooperation between Diaspora groups
  

Nonetheless, there are differences regarding the inclusion of human rights aspects which is strongly supported by the UN, and the prioritisation of migration control as seen in the EU.

The paper describes the consequences of 'brain drain' for developing countries. Negative aspects are the loss of human capital, causing shortages in strategic sectors like health, education, public services, industry and science and a loss of national economic investment and tax revenue. But there are also positive sides like remittances, transfers of knowledge and technology ('brain gain') and the positive role of Diaspora communities in the support of economic entrepreneurship in developing countries.

It highly depends on the context whether the migration of skilled personnel has positive consequences on a country of origin. In general the paper concludes that weak countries get weaker and strong countries gain.

The authors suggest more research on the topic with stronger considerations regarding the context of migration and elaborations on the differences between countries.

by Martin Behrens

For regular updates on migration policies in Europe please register for Euforic's newsfeed on migration.

Connecting security and development cooperation: Opportunities and risks

Austrian soldiers recently participated in the EU Mission in Chad. Although this was hotly debated in neutral Austria, there was little reflection of the implications of such a mission from a development and humanitarian viewpoint.

The Austrian Journal for Development Policy recently (JEP) devoted a recent issue to the Security-Development Nexus and asked whether the relationship between security and development is better described as coherence or rivalry.

At an event organised around these themes, Clemens Six from ÖFSE stressed that the increased discussion of security questions should be understood as an opportunity to challenge current concepts and strategies of development cooperation.

Jan Pospisil (Austrian Institute for International Affairs) discussed the inter-connectivity of security and development. The argument that "development needs security" and "security needs development" should not be taken as an uncritical truth.

Gudrun Kramer (Institute for Integrative Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding) commented on the opportunities and constrains of a closer cooperation between security and development actors. While security defines a threat by looking on the actors and asking who is threatening someone and how can this be stopped, developmental and conflict sensible approaches bring more attention to the causes of a conflict, which has usually a societal and socio-economic background.

Kramer pointed out that development policy must not stop by deconstructing the current security-development debate but has to offer alternatives. That's why one should ask how Austrian development cooperation can develop a more conflict sensitive approach to security issues.

Martina Schloffer (Austrian Red Cross) presented some insights from her practical experience of humanitarian aid actors dealing with the security sector. In her view, it is important to know about each others objectives and mandates. One needs to find a way to work in complementary ways, as no organization alone can offer a solution for a complex conflict situation. It is important to keep the overall perspective and to engage in constant dialogue with all relevant actors. Schloffer noted that private companies constitute a new power which cannot be ignored.

This last point drew comments from the audience where it was pointed out that in Iraq, for example, private security companies already take over development tasks in areas with a high security threats level. This makes it difficult for the local population to distinguish between humanitarian aid and military personnel.

See Euforic newsfeed on security; dossier on Austria; and recent news from ÖFSE

by Martin Behrens

Sicherheitsinteressen und EZA. Chancen und Risiken verstärkter Kooperation

Die Beteiligung von österreichischen Soldaten am EU Militäreinsatz im Chad wurde in der neutralen Republik
zwar thematisiert, jedoch fand keine Debatte über entwicklungspolitische und humanitäre Aspekte dieser Mission statt.

Das österreichische Journal für Entwicklungspolitik (JEP) widmet seine letzte Ausgabe dem Thema: „Entwicklungspolitik und Sicherheitsinteressen: Kohärenz oder Konkurrenz?“. Die Veröffentlichung sowie die Aktualität des Themas zum Anlass nehmend, lud Clemens Six von der Österreichischen Forschungsstiftung für Internationale Entwicklung (ÖFSE) zur Podiumsdiskussion nach Wien, auch mit dem Vorsatz eine Diskussion in Österreich zu stimulieren.

In seiner kurzer Einleitung machte Clemens Six darauf aufmerksam, dass man die verstärkte Diskussion von Sicherheitsfragen auch als Chance verstehen sollte entwicklungspolitische Konzepte und Zielsetzungen zu hinterfragen und gegebenenfalls neu zu gestalten. Anschließend ging Jan Pospisil (Österreichisches Institut für Internationale Politik) auf die Verschränkung der Begriffe Sicherheit und Entwicklung ein. Er machte deutlich das die Kausalkette "Entwicklung braucht Sicherheit" beziehungsweise "Sicherheit braucht Entwicklung" nicht unreflektiert übernommen werden sollten.

Gudrun Kramer (Institute for Integrative Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding) erläuterte die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer Kooperation von Akteuren beider Bereiche. Der Sicherheitssektor definiert Bedrohung über Akteure. Es wird gefragt: "Wer bedroht mich und wie kann ich ihn unschädlich machen?" Dagegen schaut ein entwicklungspolitischer, konfliktsensibler Ansatz auf die Ursachen einer Bedrohung, die in der Regel gesellschaftlicher und sozio-ökonomischer Natur sind. Die Entwicklungspolitik dürfe, so Kramer, nicht bei der Dekonstruktion von Ideologien stehen bleiben. Gefragt ist die Darbietung von Alternativen. Es stellt sich deshalb die Frage, wie österreichische Entwicklungszusammenarbeit konfliktsensitiver werden kann.

Abschließend teilte Martina Schloffer (Rotes Kreuz) ihre praktischen Erfahrungen einer Zusammenarbeit humanitärer Hilfe mit Sicherheitsakteuren.

Wichtig sei bei jeglicher Zusammenarbeit die Klarheit über die Ziele und Mandate der Einzelnen Organisationen. Dabei muss ausgelotet werden wie komplementär zueinander gehandelt werden kann, denn keiner sei alleine in der Lage ein Gesamtproblem zu lösen. Der Blick für das Ganze ist wichtig sowie ein permanenter Dialog mit anderen Akteuren. Schloffer stellt fest, dass dabei private Akteure eine immer größere Rolle spielen.

Dies ist ein Umstand, der auch von vielen Teilnehmer der Veranstaltung mit Sorge betrachtet wird. So bemerkt ein Teilnehmer am Beispiel Irak, dass amerikanische Sicherheitsfirmen in Gebieten mit hohen Sicherheitsrisiken verstärkt Entwicklungsaufgaben übernehmen. Dies führe dazu, dass die lokale Bevölkerung nicht mehr klar zwischen humanitären Helfern und Militärs unterscheiden könnten. Lesen Sie mehr zum Thema Sicherheit und Entwicklung und abonnieren Sie den Euforic security newsfeed.

Besuchen Sie auch das Euforic Dossier zur österreichischen Entwicklungspolitik


von Martin Behrens

ÖFSE strategy paper 2008

The Austrian Research Foundation for International Development (ÖFSE - Österreichische Forschungsstiftung für internationale Entwicklung) recently published a strategy paper (in German) with its vision and objectives for the coming years. Hereby, the organization wants to adjust to new developments within Austrian development cooperation and the international cooperation environment.

ÖFSE sees itself as an internationally linked research, information and documentation centre with a prominent position within Austrian Development Cooperation. It wants to increase knowledge within the Austrian development community and the public in general.

As priorities for the up-coming years the paper states:

• further organizational development towards an internationally linked research institute which works on edged-cutting issues;
• stabilize its position as a forum for discussion on private and public development cooperation, through the organisation of events and conferences
• extend its consultancy work and applied services

According to the paper, access to information and knowledge is key for future-oriented action. ÖFSE wants to sharpen its profile by:

• further developing country profiles and regionalized content
• continuing the collection of documents and publications related to Austrian Development Cooperation
• the development of new information services

ÖFSEs research profile is based on the target of poverty alleviation and sustainable development. Future research areas outlined in the paper are:

• International Development Policy and Cooperation: especially of the EU and development and cooperation of donor strategies through the OECD
• Austrian Development Policy and Cooperation: including policy objectives, financing issues, private development cooperation
  
• International Development Policy and Global Economy: strategies of International Finance Institutions, International Finance and Trade Policy and its influence on development countries
• Fundamental approaches and strategies in poverty alleviation and sustainable development
• The role of the education sector in development processes, strategies of educational development within Bi- and Multilateral Cooperation

See also the information service of ÖFSE on Austrian Development Cooperation at eza.at

See Euforic's dossier on Austrian development cooperation,or sign up for our OEFSE newsfeed or our German language newsfeed on German, Austrian and Swiss Development Cooperation.

by Martin Behrens