Sir,
At first glance, Jonathan Holslag's analysis seems to make sense: if there are too many small-time actors involved in development aid in Europe, replace them with a single large European agency. It is true that the concentration of development aid could give “visible” results from certain points of view, such as financial effectiveness or the simplification of decision-making. This centralised model could turn out, however, to be counterproductive in more fundamental ways.
Non-governmental development organisations in Europe and our partners in the South all agree that the main problem with international aid today is the lack of democratic control both in donor and beneficiary countries. At the European level, this is already a serious issue because of the weakness of the European Parliament. The creation of a European aid agency would only serve to distance development assistance even further from citizens, governments and parliaments, as well as representatives of aid organisations.
I also think the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is presented by Holslag as a model of “efficient centralisation,” is not an appropriate example. New international co-operation tools (called vertical funds) must also be assessed to measure their effectiveness in the field and for local people.
Holslag raises the issue of new donors on the international aid scene. In fact, competition is increasing among donors and certain beneficiary countries use it to gain access to raw materials or to reinforce their international political alliances. Such practices, alas, are neither new nor exclusive to emerging countries. European methods are often more subtle, and the links between aid and commercial interest may be more indirect, but the political and economic logic remains the same.
In my opinion, the issue facing the European Union is two-fold. On one hand, the EU must make sure large emerging countries are part of the international decision-making process and play their part in setting the rules of the game, including conditions, governance, effectiveness and so forth. It may take time but there is no alternative to (re)-build a consensus on international aid. I think the United Nations is an appropriate framework for this initiative.
On the other hand, the EU must also work outside bilateral relations between governments, particularly in situations where peace, the rule of law, political plurality or human rights are not respected. New diversified strategies are needed to bring in actors who are currently excluded, such as parliaments, local authorities, the media, civil society, the private sector, universities and political parties.
I believe development aid should become a true process of political dialogue, international solidarity and mutual responsibility between societies, and not simply the tool of political, financial and technical co-operation between governments. I hope the day will come when European aid is truly democratic, planned over several decades and open to a large panoply of actors. Co-operation will be built on clear and realistic agendas based on grand principles such as political plurality, freedom of expression, participation of populations and civil society, and sustainable development. It will reflect consensus negotiated among all. To reach that day, Europe must lead the way.