LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
on Jean-Michel Severino's "There’s much ground to make up, but the reform of EU aid is now under way"
Autumn 2007
Sir,
I agree with Jean-Michel Severino that Europe lacks clout as an international aid donor and that it is high time for the EU to sort out its own arcane structure of providing development assistance.
As Severino notes, the problem stems in part from the disjointed nature of European development research, which neither informs EU policies sufficiently nor provides the basis for the Commission’s development assistance. European development researchers are poorly linked, so their collective contribution is no more than the sum of their parts. The Commission has recognised these short-comings and, in conjunction with member states including the UK, now aims to produce a European Report on Development. Let us hope that this report helps to establish new working relationships in the field of research and provides a mechanism to raise Europe’s profile on the international development scene.
Severino also remarks on a number of initiatives that are already underway to enhance the effectiveness of European aid. For instance, his emphasis on the 2005 “Paris Declaration” is entirely justified. I would add that the recent Council Conclusions on the Code of Conduct for Donors on Complementarity and Division of Labour represents another important step forward. We need much more of this kind of leadership from the EU, combined with further reforms.
Rethinking the Commission role seems to me to be one such essential reform. Severino rightly questions the Commission’s current division of responsibility for aid between the Directorates General for external relations and international development. Newcomers to the EU are often confused and surprised at these arrangements. If we had to begin again, would we create these same divisions? Is the system truly fit for purpose, especially now that cost-effectiveness is increasingly scrutinised? Ideally, development policy should be coherent and closely linked to implementation and monitoring.
There are plenty of opportunities coming up for member states and the Commission to agree new working pratices. The Fundamental Review of the Budget is one such chance. Discussions over the role of the High Representative and the European External Action Service will provide even better opportunities for a whole host of options to be considered.
For example, the High Representative seems set to take on the role of the Commissioner for External Relations but he (or she) could, conceivably, also have responsibility for enlargement, development and trade. A more minimalist model might see the High Representative being complemented by commissioners for trade, enlargement and development, with a rearrangement of responsibilities among Commission staff. The European External Action Service might take responsibility for political analysis of every country, with DG DEV becoming the policymaker for all developing countries, rather than the ACP countries alone.
These are just some of the many alternatives to the way we do things now. The most important point to make is that we must grasp the opportunity for discussion and agreement. We can and should change European aid architecture for the better.