“Europe doesn't question official development aid” (Commissioner KAREL DE GUCHT)

1. Why does the Commission bring out this kind of communication right now?

Well, it’s important to keep in mind the logic behind this exercise. Instead of looking at development policy in the narrow sense, you have to realise there are all sorts of policy decisions and initiatives which have an impact on developing countries. A negative one, as is the case with export subsidies, or a positive impact, for instance when we factor the needs of developing countries into our proposal for an EU response to the H1N1 pandemic.

The purpose of this process is to streamline initiatives in all policy areas of the commission, with a focus on five priorities: climate change, global food security, migration, intellectual property rights and security.

Since the Policy Coherence for Development initiative or PCD, in jargon, was launched in 2005, we have been reviewing progress every two years by means of a report. This year, as the report was being drawn up, we sought ways to upgrade the approach and to make it more relevant to some key global development challenges. PCD is so far being well implemented on a daily basis. With 14 different Directorates-General of the European Commission involved in the process, it is easy to get bogged down in detail and lose a strategic perspective. Since 2007, the world has changed immensely. We have seen economic growth in Africa now put under strain. We have been through the fuel, food price and financial crises and seen the instant fallback on developing economies. Climate change is more than ever a clear and present threat with security ramifications - hence our Communication.

2. Which essential statements would you retain of this document?

The Communication proposes a new approach focussing future PCD work on the five priority areas mentioned earlier. PCD being a holistic initiative, this means that we are still monitoring the developmental impact of all non-development policies as they take shape, but that we will now do so against the benchmark of five priority objectives.

3. Is it a prelude to a shift in development policies of member states? So yes, in which way?

It’s above all an exercise in coherence, and one we hope member states will replicate in their own systems so that other, non-development policies will contribute to rather than hamper development.

4. The text is quite vague and not really ambitious?

Ambition comes in different scales. Making a global media splash was probably not what we had in mind because PCD is about “behind-the-scenes change management” if I can put it this way. Getting 14 DGs to coordinate and to mainstream development considerations up the decision-making funnel will not make attention-grabbing headlines. But, our approach has received commendation from the OECD/Development Aid Committee which functions almost like a standards board for some of the world’s largest donors.

5. Which important steps are taken, in your opinion?

I would say that the fact that we are upgrading our PCD approach to make it relevant to the challenges of today’s world is an important starting point. With a change of team at Berlaymont expected and a new European Parliament legislature, we have to ensure the PCD continues to be understood, upheld and even replicated outside the Commission framework. Quite some work ahead!

6. Do you think that Europe is setting out the ground to expand ODA and so, loosen existing criteria on Official Development Aid?

Nowhere in our Communication do we suggest that development-friendly actions undertaken in the context of non-development policies are a surrogate for ODA. To do so would be to demolish one of the key pillars of EU development policy. What we are doing through PCD is recognising that ODA is one of many important enablers of development and that we are able to influence development-friendliness through non-ODA instruments and seek greater ODA/non-ODA coherence. For example, if so requested, we can use ODA to upgrade a country’s main harbour while at the same time ensuring that trade agreements signed between the EU and the country concerned are geared towards fostering integration in regional/world economies and enhancing its domestic production, supply and trading capacities.

Perhaps some countries do not like to appear ungenerous (Karel De Gucht)

7. Ngo’s are afraid that this will allow member states to take into account other ‘aid-money’, such as relief for the effect of climate change in Africa. Understandable?

It is understandable that some member states might be tempted to seek elastic interpretations of ODA, but we have the OECD/Development Assistance Committee setting the standards, as I hinted at earlier. Every year, the OECD collects statistics on its’ members’ ODA performance. This is checked and counter-validated in order to ensure that what is reported as ODA can actually be accounted for as such. The Commission conducts a parallel exercise every year using OECD-comparable data for those EU Member States that are not OECD members. This is done as part of the follow-up to a conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico, 2002, which incidentally covered a broad range of financial instruments other than ODA such as taxation, foreign direct investment or international trade.

8. If yes, why would they do that? Are there arguments in favour of?

There are several reasons. I will try to pinpoint a few. Perhaps some countries do not like to appear ungenerous. Others have to respond to concerns of domestic constituencies. Perhaps the countries you have in mind say one thing before an election and something different a year later. Also, the borderline between development and some non-development policies is not always clear cut, leaving room for interpretation.

9. The document puts some priorities, which seem closely linked to European interests. Why else would ‘intellectual property rights’ be mentioned? Strangely, trade is not mentioned.

The Communication is a political proposal set out by the European Commission so a certain degree of self-interest is unavoidable. But the EU development policy is much more about solidarity as it is about self-interest. I fail to see though, why a PCD focus on intellectual property rights would be solely beneficial for European interests. As for trade, we will continue to ensure the development-friendliness of EU trade agreements with developing countries and to reflect development concerns in our international trade negotiations, especially Doha.

10. Will this “communication” have an effect whatsoever or shouldn’t governments, ngo’s, aid organisations bother to much about this text?

I think they should bother. Many a time, PCD is about low-cost investments for comprehensive gains. Since 2005, we have been scoring points along the way. For example, our Common Agricultural Policy is now much more development friendly than it used to be, mainly by coupling income support payments to farmers and by eliminating constraints on production. The new focus on food security should further push us to seek even greater coherence between EU development policy, agricultural policy and other policies such as trade, environment, energy, to name but a few.