LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Spring 2008

by Romana Jordan Cizelj

RELATED ARTICLES:

---

Sir,

Mick Foster is right to stress that aid programmes must both be long-term and agreed mutually between donors and recipient countries if we are to reach the Millennium Development Goals on poverty reduction, education and health. The EU, as the world’s largest donor of development funds, is already applying both principles to the way it manages over half of the world’s total aid budget. We strive to make our funding more effective through better coordination among EU and outside donors. We also work hand-in-hand with recipient nations to achieve long-term cooperation, which requires lasting commitments on both sides. All this is tied into the EU Code of Conduct on the division of labour in development policy. The Code is embedded in the principles of ownership, alignment, harmonisation and good management.


Today we can measure the progress achieved by concerted aid efforts. The proportion of the world’s population living in extreme poverty fell from nearly one third to less than a fifth between 1990 and 2004. The numbers of the poorest of the poor have levelled off in sub-Saharan Africa and overall the poverty rate has declined by nearly six percentage points since 2000. More children are now in school in the developing world. Enrolment in primary education, for example, rose from 80% in 1991 to 88% in 2005. Child mortality has declined worldwide, with targeted intervention programmes saving many young lives from the main killer diseases and conditions. Controls over malaria have also been expanded. Even women's political participation is growing, albeit slowly. Therefore, it is obvious that together we can implement effective aid programmes.

Despite such progress, bilateral donors are still being criticised for granting development aid out of national, political, strategic, security or economic self-interest. I believe that a new global development mechanism could avoid such censure, especially if it were to take over responsibility for the most contentious issues. For example, the decision to suspend aid in the case of severe human rights violations would be more acceptable if it were taken at an international level.

A new global aid instrument could also guarantee recipient nations a more dependable income stream, one that was free from short-term conditionality or political interference from individual donors. As Mick Foster says, the current “stop-start” approach is most unhelpful for developing countries which are trying to secure long-term development for their people.