Avoiding duplication of European aid efforts

The new government of the Democratic Republic of Congo is a sizeable team, including 60 ministers and deputy ministers. Such numbers are not unusual after a civil war because all factions that were previously enemies demand a say, and accordingly must be assigned posts. After all, they have all contributed to overcoming differences and make peace.

A similar situation sometimes arises when donor countries join forces in search of an efficient division of labour, aspiring to decide who is to do what in a target country. Last year in Zambia, for example, some 20 bilateral and multilateral donors agreed to avoid duplication of work, improve coordination among one another and thus reduce the workload of the Zambian government. The result was meagre.

Instead of ten donors involved in agriculture before the reform, there are now eight (plus another one in the “passive” role of financial backer). Instead of 14 donors involved in education, there are now ten (plus two passive ones). In the health sector, the figure went down from 11 to nine, and just as before, four donors are dealing with gender issues. In short: the number of donors in the individual sectors hardly changed because so many of them insisted on staying involved. Withdrawal from a sector was the exception. Typically, only roles were re-defined.

So far, there is little sign of donors sytematically organising a division of labour in general. That is the conclusion of a recent study by the German Development Institute (DIE), from which the example of Zambia was taken. Research institutes in Slovenia and Portugal contributed to the study. If the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, which commissioned the research, has its way, matters will change. Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul says: “As donors, we have recognised that the best way to help the developing countries is not to have all donors operating in all countries and all sectors.”

In October last year, the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council adopted guiding principles for a development-related division of labour among EU donors. The DIE paper bases practical suggestions on these guidelines. It is believed that other donors will follow suit once the EU members agree on a coherent line of action and an adequate division of labour. Combined, the EU and its members contribute approximately half of all global development assistance. There are already some arrangements in the EU and its sub-regions (for instance “Nordic Plus” in Scandinavia), on which a formal division of labour could be based.

The DIE proposes that EU members first commit to rules of conduct in several pilot countries and gain experience. They should limit both the number of sectors per donor and the number of donors per sector. Most donors have in fact already defined priority sectors, but in practice they are often involved in other areas too. Moreover, the Zambian example shows that they find it difficult to completely withdraw from sectors. “First experiences with donor-wide division of labour exercises show that the willingness of donors to focus their activities is crucial for success,” states the DIE paper.
Furthermore, European Union members should base selection of target countries on agreements among themselves. The study sees “little potential for joint criteria and joint decision-making in the short run,” because the selection of partner countries is a political rather than a technical decision. However, donors should at least monitor their cooperation with those countries in which they are represented in especially large numbers.

According to the study, there are currently around a dozen “donor darlings”, in which more than nine EU members are active. The EU should first test division of labour in several pilot countries – preferably “darlings” that are especially dependent on development assistance, like Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Rwanda or Uganda. Such focussing, however, should be done without assistance decreasing for the affected countries. Moreover, it would make sense for EU members to closely coordinate and synchronise the additional aid they have pledged when deciding to increase ODA by 2015.

Finally, European Union donors should generally define priority sectors among one another. So far, such arrangements are made at the level of individual recipient countries. As the DIE study shows, however, all donors tend to focus on the same sectors, particularly health and education. If individual EU member governments specialised in certain fields instead, the EU as a whole would still cover all areas and at the same time avoid overlaps. Such approaches could be tried out in new fields of international cooperation such as climate protection or tackling migration. (ell)