Helen O’NeillNational University of Ireland, Dublin

UN and EU Development Goals:

Some quantitative and qualitative aspects

Quantitative Aspects

UN Development Goals

• ODA: 0.7% of GNP/GNIAccepted in principle by almost all MSs in 1970

• MDGsFirst agreed within the OECD in early 1990s(published in Shaping the 21st Century in 1996)

Agreed by all MSs at UN Millennium Summit in 2000

EU Development Assistance Targets(Monterrey/Barcelona targets)

• Each MS to reach ODA/GNI 0.33% by 2006

• Combined EU to reach ODA/GNI 0.39% by 2006

Current Situation and Prospects regarding ODA Targets

ODA/GNI target of 0.7%• All donors: 0.25% in 2003

• EU: 0.35% in 2003

Prospects for EU in 2006• ODA set to exceed Monterrey target & reach 0.42% in

2006(Nielson, October 2004)

• Several EU MSs have identified date to reach UN 0.7% target 

• Nielson says EU should make new ODA offer in UN in 2005

Current Situation and Prospects regarding MDGs

IFAD Rural Poverty Report 2001

Goal to halve extreme poverty is ‘doomed to fail’ because of decline in aid to agriculture and rural areas where most poor people live

UNDP HDR Report 2003:

 ‘Unless progress accelerates, MDGs will not be reached by 2015’

The world is on track for some goals but in many countries poverty grew in the 1990s, life expectancy fell due to HIV/AIDS and access to basic health and school enrolments fell due to conflicts.

Current Situation and Prospects regarding MDGs

World Bank/IMF Global Monitoring Report 2004

‘Now past the halfway mark for goals set in the early 1990s, prospects for reaching many of the MDGs are ‘bleak’. If present trends continue, only one (halving the number living below $1 a day) will be met. Even that one will be due to successes in China and India. SSA will fall well short’.

Among the priorities for donors, is a big increase in ODA. At least an extra $30 billion p.a. could be absorbed by DCs. If their policies and governance were improved, they could absorb an extra $50 billion p.a.

 

Motivations for providing ODA

• Humanitarian/moral

• Economic

• Political/security

Links between aid programmes of EC & Member States (MS)

EU BUDGET

European Development Fund (EDF)(extra-budgetary)

Including:

Food AidEmergency aidAid to MediterraneanAid to ALACo-financing with NGOs

Lomé and Cotonou Conventions

EU MEMBER STATE

Including:PCsNGOsDev. Ed.

World Bank

UN EC

Multilateral ODA Bilateral ODA

Some qualitative aspects: the three CsNecessary precondition for effective aid

• Cooperation and coordination

• Complementarity

• Policy coherence

Legal Basis of 3 Cs within EU

• Treaty of Maastricht 1992, Arts 130u-130y and Amsterdam Treaty 1999, Arts 177-181

• EC development cooperation policy, which shall be complementary to MS policies, shall foster; sustainable development, integration of DCs into the global economy, and campaign against poverty

• The EC shall take account of above objectives in policies likely to affect DCs (coherence)

• The EC and MS shall co-ordinate their policies

Types of Co-ordination

• Donor-partner (EC/DC, MS/DC)

• Donor-donor (EC/MS, MS/MS, EC and MS/other donors

• Donor/international organisations (EC and MS/WB and UN)

• Among international organisations (WB/IMF, WB/IMF/WTO, among UN agencies)

Burdens on Aid Recipients

• Donor-driven priorities and systems• Difficulties with donor procedures• Uncoordinated donor practices• Excessive demands on time• Delays in disbursements• Lack of information• Demands beyond national capacity

OECD(2003), Guidelines on Harmonising Donor Practices

Key areas for improvements

• Simplify procedures• Harmonise procedures• Align procedures on partners’ systems• Share information• Untie aid• Respect national priorities and strategies• Strengthen local capacity• Move to budget support and SWAps

Has Co-ordination improved?

UN level: • UN reforms but co-ordination among

agencies imperative• UNDA framework supposed to bring all UN

funds together in DC• Donors coordinating their consultations

with UN agencies

Has Co-ordination improved?

WB/IMF/WTO level:  • Cooperation between WB/IMF/WTO improved since

UR• Agreements signed: IMF/WTO 1996, WB/WTO 1997• WB and IMF attend WTO General Council on

Coherence since 2003

Specific examples of cooperation include:•IMF’s Trade Integration Mechanism•Sectoral Cotton Initiative•Trade Facilitation

Has Co-ordination improved?

WB/IMF/EU level: WB study of PRSPs reported some positive results

OECD level:‘Rome Declaration’ on Harmonisation 2003 to improve aid effectiveness

Has Co-ordination improved?

EU level:• Some improvements following 1999 EC reforms;

Cotonou Agreement; 2000 Joint Statement on development Policy; and simplification of Financial Regulation

• Nordic+ group• EU spoke with one voice in Monterrey and Jo’burg• EU provides 55% of global ODA but one voice

needed in int’l fora• Overall report card: Could do much better!

What is Complementarity at EU Level?

• C2 concerns the relationship between aid programmes and policies of EC and MS

• Entails sharing of compentences. It is neither the ‘Europeanisation’ of EU aid, nor the ‘re-nationalisation’ of EU aid

• Related to comparative advantage, value added, leadership, and concentration

• Also related to role of partner country which should be ‘in the driver’s seat’

What is the problem?

• EU provides over 50% of global aid but is not perceived as an ‘aid leader’

• EU speaks with many voices on aid

• Overlaps and duplication of activities

• EU’s ‘place in the world’ vs. MS ‘place in the world’

Is Complementarity improving in EU?

• EC actions to be focused on 6 areas: link between trade and development; regional integration and cooperation; support for macroeconomic policies; transport; food security and sustainable rural development; institutional capacity-building and x-cutting issues incl. HRs, gender equality, env’ment

• Country Strategy Papers can promote complementarity and co-ordination

• However, information exchange still weak

What is Coherence?

• Ensuring that all policies of international organisations and donors that are likely to affect DCs do not run contrary to what they are trying to achieve with their direct development cooperation policies and development assistance

• It applies at all levels, UN, IFIs, OECD, EU, and national levels

Where did it come from in EU?

• Article 130u of Maastricht states that EC development cooperation policy shall foster: sustainable socio-econ. dev. of DCs; smooth and gradual integration of DCs into global economy; campaign against poverty in DCs

• Article 130v states that the EC shall take account of those objectives in the policies it implements that are likely to affect DCs

• Article 130v (177 of Amsterdam) is the ‘coherence Article’

However….

• Article 3, as amended by Nice, states that: ‘The Union shall in particular ensure the consistency of its external activities as a whole in the context of its external relations, security, economic and development policies’

• It does not say which policy takes precedence over the others

…and, more recently, in the 2000 joint Policy Statement….

• ‘There must be greater coherence between the various Community policies focused on sustainable development. Efforts must be made to ensure that Community development policy objectives are taken into account in the formulations and implementation of other policies affecting the DCs.’

Types of policy incoherence

• Internal, development: e.g., food aid• Internal, other: e.g, CAP, fisheries,

environment, consumer protection, immigration• External, development: EC & MS/DC, EC/MS,

EC & MS/WB & UN• External, other: Trade, external relations, CFSP

Some attempts to improve C3 in EU...

• Since early 2000s, using impact assessment systems intended to identify potential economic, social and env’l impacts of all major policy proposals

• Since 2001, iQSG examines all CSPs wrt ia 3 Cs (iQSG incls. reps of all services involved in ext’l rels with DCs - although not CAP, CFP, consumer protection)

• March 2004 EC Working Paper:All MS and most AC agree shared C3 analysis

• Coherence units established

…but continued concerns

Recent DAC Peer Reviews of MS and EC• MS : All urged to improve; some regressing

because of national interests• EC 2002: weak coherence between CAP, CFP

and development policies; ‘complex’ procedures; weak analytical capacity

• EC 1998: Impossible to be consistent in all matters at all times...avoid contradictory policies…anticipate consequences