Explore Close
Menu Close

Categories

BlogArticlesSpeechesInterviewsEssaysBook ReviewsLetters

Tags

International developmentIraqUK PoliticsLabour PartyMiddle Eastbiographyextractive industriesIsrael-PalestineAfricaeconomicsreligion and ethicsurbanisationglobalisationenvironmentforeign policyforeign aidChilcot ReportBrexitfeminismEU

Archives

October 2022 August 2022 November 2021 July 2021 March 2021 February 2021 October 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 February 2020
  • Blog
  • Articles
  • Speeches
  • Interviews
  • Other Writings
    • Essays
    • Books
    • Book Reviews
    • Letters
  • About
    • Biography
    • Current Work
    • Gallery
  • Contact

Clare Short

Clare Short

  • Blog
  • Articles
  • Speeches
  • Interviews
  • Other Writings
    • Essays
    • Books
    • Book Reviews
    • Letters
  • About
    • Biography
    • Current Work
    • Gallery
  • Contact
Articles

Reform of the EU aid programme is overdue.

thomas_admin on 29th July 2002
Article originally published in The Guardian | 29-July-2002

The EU is the world’s largest foreign aid donor however its actual development programme is an embarrassment.

Unless Europe targets spending more effectively at achieving the internationally agreed millennium development goals of halving poverty, getting all children into school, reducing child and maternal mortality, and focusing on sustainable development, Britain and the other member states should “renationalise” their aid budgets. ​

Globally, untying aid, focusing it where the poor are and backing reformers would increase the value of existing aid by 50% to $87bn – and massively improve public confidence. We therefore need to target parts of the international system which can do most to achieve this.

The worst offender for highly ineffective aid spending is the European commission. With an annual spend of about €6bn, it has programmes in almost every developing country. And 25% of the UK’s aid budget – more than €1bn in 2000 – is transferred to the EC each year.

Some of its work is now of high quality but, overall, EC programmes are not focused on reducing poverty. The proportion of EC aid spent in low-income countries has fallen from 70% in 1990 to 38%.

Commissioners Chris Patten and Poul Nielson have made a start on tackling inefficiency. The turnaround in the quality of EC programmes in the Balkans is one example. But they would be the first to admit that procedures are still too slow and complex. The confus ing political direction set by member states and the European parliament means that EC spending is not focused on the reduction of poverty.

In the past few years we have worked to tackle some of the most glaring problems, and the EC now at least has an agreed objective of reducing global poverty. But the radical progress we need has not been achieved. We must grasp every opportunity for reform.

First, make poverty reduction the overriding objective. Too often the political consensus reached by the council of ministers and the European parliament is to maintain spending at historical levels in regions where the sole motive is that the EU has a general political interest there. Large resource transfers to middle-income countries with high lev els of poverty simply prop up the status quo and do not generate reform.

The events of September 11 highlight the links between poverty and insecurity and the need for the EU to widen its horizon beyond the near-abroad, and focus its scarce resources where they can make the most difference in tackling poverty and instability. ​

We need a clear commitment to the millennium development goals in the EC. This requires a major refocus ing of its aid spending on poverty reduction and a stronger commitment to development in trade, the environment and other policies. Programmes should operate at the highest EU standards, not the lowest.

Second, we need to focus EC programmes where they can add value, and cut back other activities. That means a hard look at why EU member states have EC programmes as well as national ones.

If EC programmes can be better delivered through national agencies or other multilateral ones, then it is hard to justify their continuation. Likewise, if the EC can find a way of being effective then we should also use it more as a channel for national funds.

​Third, we need to streamline radically the instruments used by the EC, which have created complex and slow procedures. EC development legislation is byzantine, with overlapping regulations governing external programmes. On top of this, the annual budget process encourages complexity through its tendency to promote special interests.

​I would instead like to see a single regulation for EC development spending that ends the unhealthy focus on geo-political regions and encourages a global approach to poverty reduction – with resources allocated where they will do most to achieve this – backed up by clearer measurement of effectiveness and quality of performance.

​This would give the commission more freedom to manage EC programmes effectively without micro-management from member states and the parliament.

​I welcome recent reforms of EC development programmes. They are beginning to make a difference. But as they roll out we also run up against their limitations. We have until 2006 when a new external affairs budget will be set.

​My personal view is that we should demand a massive improvement in EC programmes and a return to at least 70% of resources spent on low-income countries. If this is not achieved, we should demand re-nationalisation of the aid programme.

​If the EC cannot add value to the work of member states then this is what the principle of subsidiarity dictates.

Read the original article from the publisher.

  • Posted in: Articles
  • Tagged in: EU, foreign aid

Posted by

All Posts
Leave a comment Hide comments

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • Sir Brian Urquhart Award acceptance speech
  • Only a new asylum convention can thwart the people smugglers
  • What’s wrong with aid? LSE lecture
  • Labour’s route to power involves coalition with smaller parties
  • The audacity of change
  • Clare’s recent lecture: Reflecting on the Demise of DfID
  • Britain’s aid budget could soon become little more than a slush fund for business

Content

  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Book Reviews
  • Essays
  • Interviews
  • Letters
  • Speeches

Tags

Afghanistan Africa anti-racism biography Birmingham Brexit Chilcot Report Cities Alliance class Cold War constitution corruption Donald Trump economics education policy electoral reform environment EU European politics extractive industries feminism foreign aid foreign policy globalisation International development international relations Iraq Irish Politics Israel-Palestine Labour Party media Middle East Oxfam publications religion and ethics resources Russia slum dwellers Syria terrorism UK Politics UN United States urbanisation US politics
Previous
Clare Short Prospect interview.
20th May 2002
Next
Aids and the southern African humanitarian crisis.
1st December 2002

Clare Short was born in Birmingham in 1946. She became MP for Birmingham Ladywood in 1983, subsequently serving as Secretary of State for International Development (1997-2003). Since leaving Parliament she has worked as chair of numerous non-governmental advocacy groups working with communities across the developing world.

Content

  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Book Reviews
  • Essays
  • Interviews
  • Letters
  • Speeches

Recent Posts

  • Sir Brian Urquhart Award acceptance speech
  • Only a new asylum convention can thwart the people smugglers
  • What’s wrong with aid? LSE lecture
  • Labour’s route to power involves coalition with smaller parties
  • The audacity of change
  • Clare’s recent lecture: Reflecting on the Demise of DfID
  • Data Policy
  • Cookies Policy
  • Republication
  • Contact
  • | Site built by Thomas Bishop ⓒ 2020
© 2023 Paperback Theme by Array.