Report on the Plenary Session "The Response to the Global Economic Crisis"

I went to the Forum on development policy organized by Friends of Europe called “Beyond aid: Is our aid focus too narrow?” The purpose of this round table was to examine the effectiveness of the current development aid model and to discuss possible ways of improving it.

The discussion was fascinating and there were numerous speakers; among them were: Koos Richelle (Europaid), Bernd Eisenblätter (GTZ), Jean-Michel Debrat (AFD), Huguette Labelle (Transparency International) and Shantayanan Devarajan (World Bank). The discussion was chaired by Giles Merritt, Secretary General of Friends of Europe, who reminded the audience of the importance of organizing events such as the EDD and of frequent meetings in view of the fact that development challenges are becoming more and more important in the world. According to him, the EDD are rapidly becoming a major annual event.

During the debate, many problems were raised: How much aid? What kind of aid? How to structure it effectively? To what extent has the global economic crisis changed the deal of the cards?

Several important points were raised by the speakers during the debate: 

&nb

• The core theme was the issue of appropriation by beneficiary countries and the need for donors to take account of local realities, political conditions and the priorities defined by the partners themselves. Mrs. Labelle (TI) argued that development can only be designed “by and for beneficiary populations”. To this must be added the need – for donors – for greater transparency in the use of funds sector by sector.

• The speakers also stressed the increasing complexity in the characteristics of aid, whether in the actors, the instruments and the objectives involved. Even though the eradication of poverty must remain a priority objective, other issues are becoming increasingly important and are also very long term ones, particularly the protection of humanity’s common goods, such as climate. As a result, ODA seems to have become too restrictive a tool. Jean-Michel Debrat, in particular, stressed that it was universally measured by an instrument of limited capability. Should it not be measured by its concrete impact rather than by its flow?  And is not a new paradigm for development aid now required? The time has come for a different approach to ODA than the accountant’s because it is less a technical than a political problem.

• Thus, development was defined as “a phenomenon of societal transformation” (Eisenblatter). It is not just a technical issue but a societal one and therefore must involve the social sciences in the study of it.

• In conclusion, even though there is no question of putting an end to aid, the problem perhaps lies in the use of the word “aid” itself:  a narrow term creating cultural misunderstanding and which, perhaps, should be changed or at least clarified.  For aid must not be seen as charity, but as mutual investment.

In the same vein, we interviewed Donald Kaberuka, President of the African Development Bank, in particular to question him about the relevance of development aid. 

Flash is required!