Home / Press review / Archive / Magazine / Politics / More effective aid / Article

Dividing the labour, sharing the work

The European Union is working to improve the joint development aid policy it first established fifteen years ago. Measures to concentrate aid efforts and strengthen exchange between member states are part of the agenda.

While the EU is mostly regarded as the key foreign policy framework for a number of donors, for example for Spain and Germany, others also see alternative or parallel settings for co-ordination. To name but a few: the UK also has close links to the Commonwealth; France sustains direct links with preferred partners in Africa; and the Nordic countries cooperate within the UN or amongst themselves.

Photo: AP

The EU comprises 27 bilateral donors plus Commission-administered programmes. Co-ordination has been enshrined in EU treaties since the formulation of development co-operation in 1993. After years of pompously declared aspirations (and little action), it has made its way to the top of the European Union's agenda. If the EU donor system is not managed properly according to the internationally agreed Paris Agenda, this is likely to result in additional strain on their partner countries' administrative capacities.

Shared work

At an EU level, an important framework for improving co-ordination was created with the Code of Conduct on a Division of Labour, signed in May 2007. All states agreed to 11 principles for a division of labour. Member States and the Commission have agreed to reduce the areas of their activities to a maximum of three per partner country, to introduce or strengthen the concept of lead donors, and to coordinate their activities at a national level with other donors. Any donor, including the Commission, can take the lead of a given sector in a country. Ideally, the coordination is led by the partner country, which chooses sectors and partners for cooperation according to its national development plans. This is already put in practice in a few countries (to some degree, for instance, in Ghana, Mozambique, Uganda), but remains theory in a number of others due to lacking capacities.

Additional knowledge

Donors make a difference, however. The setup of donor interests varies among donors within specific partner countries, and consequently EU Member States have access to varying levels of information. To give an example: How much can France actually gain in knowledge by sharing information with other donors in close ally states such as Burkina Faso or Senegal? What are the incentives for the UK's Department for International Development to share information with, say, the Netherlands in Uganda? Additionally, one must bear in mind that the size and mandates of the member states' local representations in partner countries vary. This – beyond any political agenda – is likely to make co-ordination at a country level more complicated.

Giving without ulterior motives?

Common European norms and goals were agreed upon by everyone, at latest with the European Consensus on Development in 2005. However, in day-to-day development co-operation, they are helpful only to a certain extent. For instance, the desire to support partners in achieving the Millennium Development Goals does not answer the question of how to best cater to their needs. Partner governments should know best, of course – and cooperation is meant to work towards meeting the partner country's priorities. But do donors regard these as the right priorities? And what about their own interests in co-operation, which may well not be purely related to development?

A clear choice of partners

If taken seriously, the code of conduct agreed in May 2007 could result in painful decisions for EU member states at a country level. Closing down strands of development co-operation in specific regions is not easy, nor are all actors necessarily convinced that the right choice has been made on sectors and activities. How does an implementing agency, and how does the public at home react, when a donor decides to pull out of, say, the water sector in which its implementing agency has gained experience for over 30 years – simply because another donor is taking over? A concentration of activities is best guided by the clear preferences of partner countries. Political leadership by both donors and recipients is a precondition for streamlining aid.

Sven Grimm

Sven Grimm, born 1971 in Elmshorn/Germany, is currently a researcher at the German Development Institute. He lives in Cologne.
» to author index

Further articles on the subject » EU Policy, » International Relations, » Europe, » Global
More from the press review on the subject » EU Policy, » International Relations, » Europe, » Global