Blog

“Back to the Future: Recent Evolutions in EU Development Policy and Its Implications for the Global Development Agenda”

The European Centre for Development and Policy Management (ECDPM) is an independent foundation established in 1986 to promote cooperation between the European Union and developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (ACP). Global Washington members heard a presentation by ECDPM’s Senior Executive for International Relations Andrew Sherriff, on the complex interactions between and among European nations, and how EU development policies might have implications for the global development agenda. Andrew asked the members present if there are parallel trends in the U.S. If you would like to share your thought, please feel free to “comment” in response to this blog.

Andrew presented the EU’s current role in providing “Official Development Assistance” (ODA) to the developing world. (By definition, ODA must be provided by the official (government) sector, its main objective must be the promotion of economic development, and it must have a grant element of at least 25 per cent.) The UN has established a target for each developed country to provide 0.7 per cent of its GNP to ODA by 2015. A few countries (Sweden, Luxembourg) have already met that goal. The U.S. is currently at <0.2 per cent of GNP. With the current worldwide financial crisis, many countries are backing off their current commitments; however, the U.K. and the European Commission are bucking the trend and proposing to raise their contributions. Another way to “increase” ODA would be to broaden the categories that ODA can fund. (The U.S. contribution, for example, would be considerably higher if military aid were included.) Some have suggested that support for security sector reform, such as police forces, be included within the ODA categorization.

Another major change that is influencing the EU’s outlook on its contributions to ODA is the rise of the “BRICS” – the emerging market countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. BRICS are investing in Africa in a different way from the EU model of investing ODA in good government; over 37 per cent of Africa’s trade is now with BRICS countries. Much of the BRICS investment is in infrastructure, such as roads and transportation routes to access raw materials that the developing countries have.

A further complication is that the fragile and conflict states, countries which could benefit most from outside investment, are often the least well performing. “How do you spend money well?” in fragile states, Andrew asked.

Andrew presented the conclusions of a European Commission “Green Paper” on Developmental Policy, prepared in 2010. [http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/GREEN_PAPER_COM_2010_629_POLITIQUE_DEVELOPPEMENT_EN.pdf] The goal of the paper was to launch a debate on how the EU can best support developing countries' efforts to speed up progress towards the Millennium Development Goals centering on four main objectives:
• how to ensure high EU impact development policy, so that every euro spent provides the best value added and value for money, the best leverage and the best legacy of opportunities for generations to come (Andrew noted that ensuring high impact requires measuring results, but cautioned that overemphasis on short-term results may lead to perverse outcomes);
• how to facilitate more, and more inclusive, growth in developing countries, as a means of reducing poverty and providing a chance for all to have a decent living and a perspective for their future;
• how to promote sustainable development as a driver for progress (but noted that blending loans from the private sector may lead to unsustainable debt); and
• how to achieve durable results in the area of agriculture and food security (without additional “new” money).

However, he also noted that this paper was prepared before the Arab Spring of 2011, which could have long-ranging effects, particularly on Northern Africa.

Andrew ended his talk with the title of his talk: Back to the Future. He asked where the EU might be going “back” to:
• The early 1990’s, focusing on sustainable development?
• The 1980’s, focusing on competition and the Cold War?
• The 1960’s, focusing on economic growth?
• The 1950’s, focusing on the political strategy of the Marshall plan?
Do you have any thoughts? Feel free to “comment” below.

Foreign Assistance: A moral imperative

The Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development strategy stipulates that development is not only a strategic, economic but also a moral imperative for the United States. “It is rooted,” as President Barack Obama said during the Millennium Development Goals Summit in 2010, “in America’s enduring commitment to the dignity and potential of every human being.” The United States of America has been the global leader in providing assistance and as a result of it the past half century has witnessed more gains in human development than at any other time in history.

Over the last 60 years, America has offered helping hand to people at the mercy of extreme poverty, disease and tyranny in the darkest corners of the globe. Over the past 6 decades, with the help of U.S. international assistance, child mortality statistics have plummeted, literacy rates worldwide have risen 50 percent and household income in the developing countries world has tripled.

U.S.- funded programs defend against global health threats. More than 3 million lives are saved each year through international immunization programs. Infant mortality rates have been reduced by 10 percent worldwide in recent years and child survival programs funded by the U.S government have made a major contribution to that reduction. The average number of children born to couples in developing countries has dropped by about one third, from more than six to less than four, and more than 50 million couples in 60 countries in the developing world are able to plan their families as a direct result of U.S.-funded efforts.

Globally, funding for malaria control and treatment programs soared from $0.3 billion in 2003 to $1.7 billion in 2009, with the U.S. responsible for the lion’s share of the effort. Worldwide, 1 million people died of malaria in 2000, while 860,000 died of the disease in 2008, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). About a third of the people in poor countries that need daily medicine to control HIV/AIDS are now receiving antiretroviral drugs with the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the major provider of treatment. U.S. international climate funding programs has helped reduce the impact of carbon pollution.

Despite these positive outcomes, we must also face the fact that progress towards other goals has not come nearly fast enough. The future wellbeing of millions of people in the developing world rests on U.S. foreign assistance. Nearly one billion people endure the misery of chronic hunger—approximately one-sixth of the world’s population. Acute hunger “threatens the stability of governments, societies and borders around the world.” In February, the U.N Food and Agriculture Organization’s Global food price index climbed to a record high, above 2008 peaks when high food prices sparked riots in several countries. Foreign aid cuts could create social instability by damaging food security programs in the developing world.

Global health practitioners conservatively estimate that more than 1 million lives could be lost per year if U.S. cuts foreign aid for global health by 40 percent. If support from the United States disappears or suffers a significant cutback, most health achievements face reversal, and “reversal” means deaths.
Cuts to the budget will impact U.S. Global Climate change initiative. It will negate U.S. efforts to help developing countries deploy clean energy, reduce deforestation and adapt to the impacts of climate change. U.S. international climate funding programs help reduce the impact of carbon pollution. Building climate security for the world’s most vulnerable people may help prevent disruptive migration and protect all the development gains already made in health, education and political stability. Climate change has the potential to dramatically reshape future security environments. U.S. funding for adaptation helps to reduce this risk by making countries less vulnerable to the impacts of global warming.

In the light of the above facts, recent budget battles in congress has given rise to a lot of anxiety about whether the U.S has the political energy to push the reform agenda forward and continue assistance. There is a looming ambiguity about U.S. foreign aid measures which in the past have saved millions of lives and helped countries move along a path of stable and responsible growth. With the House of Representatives pushing ahead a bill that includes some of the steepest cuts in history to the international affairs budget, Global Washington feels that the onus lies on the development community. Let’s take action to oppose such deep and disproportionate cuts and fulfill our moral responsibility to build a safer and prosperous world. As President Obama said during the MDG summit “Let’s not abandon those who depend on the U.S. for life saving help and keep our promises and honor our commitments.”

With that objective in mind, Global Washington is hosting a special discussion of foreign assistance reform, principles in effectiveness and the effect of reform on global development work on August 30 from 3:30-5:30 in Kane Hall of the University of Washington. The event will feature U.S Representative Adam Smith and Kent R. Hill of World Vision. Special Assistant to the President Gayle Smith has also been invited. Come and join us to talk about the most pertinent issues.

For more information on the event and to register please click:

https://globalwa.org/our-work/reforming-aid-policy-event/

Foreign Aid Reform: Why now?

The Millennium Development Goals were brought into the world during the United Nations Millennium Summit eleven years ago for one purpose: “to set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time”, as explained by President Barack Obama. The development sector stares down the eight lofty goals every day and each bit of progress improves the lives of citizens of the world. By 2015, the hope is that through effective foreign aid, the world will have eradicated extreme poverty and hunger; achieved universal primary education; promoted gender equality; reduced child mortality; improved maternal health; more efficiently combated HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and other diseases; ensured environmental sustainability; and created a partnership for global development. Describing these goals as “lofty” seems perhaps an understatement. In last year’s August Panel hosted by Global Washington, administrator for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Rajiv Shah said that it was vital to demonstrate that the big problems of the world are solvable. So now, four years from the set end date of the summit, we must ask ourselves: what progress have we made? Are these problems as solvable as we would like to believe?

Earlier this year, a Congressional Caucus for Effective Foreign Assistance (CCEFA) was formed by Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) and Representative Ander Crenshaw (R-FL) to address issues with foreign aid and the most effective means to reform. One of their first orders of business was to launch Oxfam America’s updated Foreign Aid 101 report, which was designed to provide a factual overview of U.S. foreign aid. The report designated three major changes to U.S. foreign aid that would lead to broad-based economic growth:

• Fully implementing the U.S. Global Development Policy, which holds aid accountable for fighting poverty first and foremost, and designating more resources to initiatives that will produce sustainable change.
• Modernize the outdated laws, strategies, and structures around U.S. foreign aid. Amendments to the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act have been the main changes to development policy in the intervening years, which leaves many in the community calling the laws cumbersome and ill fitted to 2011 realities.
• Promote local ownership as the most effective path to economic growth.

These sentiments were echoed by USAID in the September 2010 US Strategy for Meeting the Millennium Development Goals. The strategy put forth calls for leveraging innovation, investing in sustainability, tracking development outcomes, and creating accountability on all sides.

The Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development was the first by any U.S. administration. Much of the sentiment previously endorsed by USAID and Oxfam’s report was echoed in the directive. It recognized that “development is vital to U.S. national security and is a strategic, economic, and moral imperative for the United States.” Its approach to global development rested on three main ideas: focusing on sustainable development outcomes, finding new operational models to make the United States a more effective partner, and harnessing development capabilities spread across government. The President too seeks to reform foreign aid into a more effective machine for combating global poverty. His administration’s revitalized operational model has stated the importance of country ownership and has pledged to work through national institutions rather than around them. They have also decided to reallocate resources in support of development initiatives that prove the most effective. It has also been decided that the Administrator of USAID will be included in relevant meetings of the National Security Council. The Presidential Policy Directive acknowledges the need for reform and cooperation within the development sector, with goals similar to those expressed by CCEFA through Oxfam’s revised report.

The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) was launched by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and modeled after the impressive Quadrennial Defense Review of the Defense Department. Clinton says the inspiration for the massive report began with a simple question:How can we do better?Under the bold-faced banner “Transforming Development to Deliver Results” the QDDR alongside Oxfam and the Presidential Policy Directive expresses similar needs for reform. The QDDR details changes being made to both State and USAID to make more of our development dollars: USAID will be made the lead agency for the Feed the Future and Global Health Initiative presidential missions. Aid will be made more transparent through the creation of a Web-based “dashboard” that publishes State and USAID foreign assistance data. A development lab will be created at USAID to establish an Innovation Fellowship to assist the best practices that come out of development. The White House, USAID, members of congress, and other massive forces in the development sector are beginning to knit themselves together to better cooperate with governments and nonprofits on the ground. The sector is committing to sustainable, transparent programs driven by recipients of aid themselves.

With such a fertile environment surrounding aid reform, what progress has actually been made towards the Millennium Goals? Between 1990 and 2005, the percentage of the world’s population living on less than $1/day dropped from 42% to 25%. Enrollment in primary education has reached 89% in the developing world. The total number of under-5 deaths decreased globally from 12.4 million/year to 8.1 million/year. UNICEF cites that the number of women dying due to complications during pregnancy and childbirth has decreased from 546,000 in 1990 to 358,000 in 2008. We still have a long way to go until the goals set to us have been achieved. But with the White House, USAID, and members of congress calling out for reformed aid that can demonstrate its own effectiveness and create solutions that sustain themselves, these numbers will continue to drop.

With the recession threatening to be the justification for cutting foreign aid projects, making aid as effective as possible is even more pertinent. Global Washington is providing a venue to discuss exactly this issue. From 3:30-5:30 on August 30th in Kane Hall of the University of Washington, U.S. Representative Adam Smith and Kent R. Hill of World Vision will be discussing effective foreign aid reform. Special Assistant to the President Gayle Smith has also been invited. Come and join us to talk about issues that shouldn’t be overlooked.