Author : CONCORD Europe
Date : March 10, 2010
Reaction to the OECD global 2010 aid forecast
Figures released in February by the OECD show that the EU will not meet its 2010 aid targets. The 2010 aid forecast notes the EU is well off track and will miss its collective target of 0.56% of GNI, agreed in 2005 as an interim benchmark towards achieving the UN goal of 0.7% of GNI by 2015 to finance the Millennium Development Goals.
Despite being hit hard by the effects of the financial crisis, not all member states have missed their targets with Belgium, Spain and the UK having made clear progress. However France and Germany, representing 37% of EU GNI, see their aid levels stagnate at 0.46% and 0.40% respectively, suggesting a lack of political will to deliver and pull their weight on aid commitments1.
“EU aid is under threat. Many governments have used the financial crisis as an excuse to slash their aid budgets, cutting off those in the developing world who are most affected”, said Rilli Lappalainen, CONCORD Board Member.
With this summer’s Millennium Development Goals review summit fast approaching, the EU and its member states need to demonstrate a real resolve to combat world poverty by meeting their commitments.
“Without real increases in aid, we will not meet the MDGs”, said Gideon Rabinowitz, chair of the AidWatch advocacy group.
“EU member states must show real political commitment to delivering on their aid promises by adopting binding national timetables setting out how they will meet the 0.7% target by 2015”, said Rabinowitz.
CONCORD will launch its 2010 AidWatch Report in May, which provides detailed analysis of how the EU and its member states are meeting their commitments on development aid.
1 CONCORD briefing ‘EU Aid in Jeopardy?’
- Comments RSS feed
-
Send this post to a friendSend this post
Date : March 31, 2010 19:45
I agree with Joyce statement: "According to me, by asking the same question over and over again -Is aid efficient- through endless seminars, big reunions and meetings, EU is losing time, and this doubt is probably what is killing ODA, or weakening it. We have reached a point in time when whether we should get involved more is a fact and not a question, and now they (Governments of EU-and world- ) only have to ask themselves how to do it best."
To answer the question, "How TO DO IT?", t he International Transparency and Accountability Network, a loose knit global network of social activists and organizations coming together to transform the world to create Community Centric Sustainable Development using the principles of Transparency and Accountability would like to see total transparency in all aid utilization.
It was said: "Global institutions such as World Bank, IMF, and UN must enjoy legitimacy from their member countries and the international community. They must be responsive, with the interests of all members, especially the smaller and poorer, being taken into account. The governance of these institutions must be flexible, must respond to new challenges, national priorities and specific circumstances".
A scathing report from the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of IMF highlights the lack of transparency and accountability in IMF. The IEO measured governance along four dimensions – effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and voice – and against three standards – the Fund's own governing documents, other international organisations, and private & public-sector corporations. The report finds accountability and voice are the weakest features of the Fund's governance and these weaknesses entail risks to the Fund's legitimacy, which in turn has a bearing on its effectiveness.
If this is the situation with global institutions, we can well imagine what would be the situation with national and regional institutions. No wonder they abound in corruption of all sorts and get away with it. Then, how do we get over this corruption mania? One sure way would be to plug all the leakages in the system. This cannot be done without active support of the governments and its citizens. A unique identification of every citizen is the primary requirement. With the advent of ICT tools, every citizen can be uniquely identified from birth to death using unique identification methods such as fingerprint, iris, hand vein geometry and DNA linked to their ID, name, photo, etc.
All transactions must be transparent to the entire world on the web using Biometric Smart Card linked to a money account and a e-Tool to link every service provider/public authority including the vertical and horizontal hierarchy of governance can be used as a single window of transactions for G2C, G2B, G2G, B2B, B2C, etc. If the transactions are thrown open, then total transparency and accountability can prevail, as envisaged in the Right to Know / Information Act.
Thus corruption, money laundering, arms trade and terrorism can be eliminated and all round peace and prosperity can prevail as every one would feel good that no one can cheat any one and all have equitable opportunities to contribute and grow.
More at http://www.4psbusinessandmarketing.com/17072008/storyd.asp?sid=2112&pageno=1
Date : March 16, 2010 11:59
Climate change and other reasons in Vietnam the water in river reduces . The sea water come to the land 40 - 60 km . Water scarity happen in some provinces and cities
To day I read the new from ADB that the Norgic development Fund supports Lao 3,1 millions USD for Climate change project.
This very good new for us - Vietnam is neibough of Lao
If this money spend for protection forest at the starting of rivers from Lao to Vietnam to sea - It will be benefit for Lao and Vietnam .
It will be good if money spend for development the forest near border Vietnam -It benefit for Vietnam and Lao. If they sell the woods to Global market : Danang is one good sea port , good window for Lao to the sea .
Thank you .
Date : March 15, 2010 04:53
Dear participanrts
Very big problem in this report, I can't image.
Big impress to me that " it is estimated that at least 3 billions EURO on year could be served by improving the aid efectiveness progress "
Big money can be usefull !
Wonderfull !
Date : March 14, 2010 16:20
The EU is an amalgam of diversely oriented states when it comes to development aid. The financial crisis, and the consequent global economic slowdown, has provided the least development-oriented member-states with the perfect pretext so as to reduce the amount of ODA they provide. It is questionable though to what extent this is the actual reason for the decrease on the progress towards reaching the 2010 targets.
In my opinion, there is (among others) a good explanation for this situation.
Even though it is undoubtedly useful to have measurable benchmarks on the amount of ODA a state is supposed to provide as a point of reference; as long as development aid is seen as ‘charity work’, no government (or public opinion) of those reluctant countries will step up its aid. When the aim is reaching a certain percentage of GNI and not achieving a concrete result in the developing world itself, then, the whole process becomes formalistic. Aid has traditionally focused on alleviating poverty and not on building the local capacities and capabilities. This way, the ‘provider’ country feels it has completed its task simply by giving money when in fact there is no long term prospect on the beneficiary.
No one can doubt the positive effects of setting the ODA target for the EU at 0.7% of GNI. It has pushed forward the level of activity and the amount of ODA provide by EU member-states. Nevertheless, this doesn’t imply that the results are more promising than before. New ideas, involving local partners and having long-term objectives could be more useful even if less money were to be spent. This potential of the viability of aid is something to consider. And in any case, the question remains; what will happen if the EU doesn’t reach meet its 2015 aid targets?
Date : March 12, 2010 10:57
Hi,
Unfortunately, nothing really surprising in this. With the global financial crisis being only months away, as well as the economic issues -unemployment, immigration, comsumption capacity plummet etc.- shaking up the inhabitants of the North, it seems that ODA is not really seen as a priority for the majority of the wealthiest countries, and notably in France.
Taking the example of France, the Agence Française de Développement (French Development Agency) carried out a survey last year to evaluate whether French people were against developemnt aid and if not, thought it was efficient. Paradoxically enough, the poll pointed out that french population is rather supportive of developemnt aid, but just does not seem to witness its impact on developing countries. But however commited to taking actions the AFD may be, it is being monitored by the french government, and can only take actions with the budget granted.
With the population of the North on our side, here is a perfect occasion to double the efforts. Public and private sector are realizing that it's compulsory to engage in a solid and long-term partnership between developed and developing countries, not because they are making the poorest a favor by helping them with their economy, but only because we are all part of the same global planet and market, one being sick automatically sickening the other one eventually. In the end, that is what the Millenium Developemnt Goals are all about.
According to me, by asking the same question over and over again -Is aid efficient- through endless seminars, big reunions and meetings, EU is losing time, and this doubt is probably what is killing ODA, or weakening it. We have reached a point in time when whether we shoud get involved more is a fact and not a question, and now they (Governemetns of EU-and world- ) only have to ask themselves how to do it best.
German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
Chinese
