APPENDIX 4
Memorandum from Saferworld
1. INTRODUCTION
"The Union's development assistance and
its efforts to reduce poverty and inequalities around the world
are closely linked to the search for peace and stability, the
need for better management of global risks and interdependence,
and the promotion of a sound development path." (Agenda 2000,
European Commission).
[1]
1.1 The European Union is committed to "the
sustainable economic and social development of developing countries,
particularly in the most disadvantaged of them".[2]
While support for "the campaign against poverty in the developing
countries"[3]
has increased, as witnessed in progressive global commitment to
the DAC International Development Targets,[4]
recognition has also been growing that achievement of sustainable
development remains dependent on the fostering of sustainable
peace.
1.2 Yet rhetorical commitments to conflict prevention
have not yet been matched by the reallocation of resources and
refocusing of assistance programmes. This submission makes a number
of recommendations as to how the European Community Development
Budget could be better targeted and managed to help address the
root causes of violent conflict and so enable sustainable economic
and social development. It proposes a greater concentration of
resources on low income countries; increased support for good
governance, security sector reform and post-conflict rehabilitation
programmes; improved political analysis and staff training within
the European Commission; and enhanced coherence between the policies
of the European Community and EU member states.
2. EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMMES
2.1 The need to integrate peace-building, conflict
prevention and resolution within efforts for poverty eradication
has been explicitly included within recent policies and programmes
of the European Community (EC) and the European Union (EU),[5]
including the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention[6],
as well as within a number of EU member states.[7]
For example, the United Kingdom's Department for International
Development, which spends over 30 per cent of its development
programme through the EU,[8]
acknowledges that achievement of its key target of poverty elimination
requires the UK to take a leading role in prioritising efforts
to support sustainable peace and development through the wide
range of international bodies of which it is a member.
2.2 Britain's Presidency of the EU during the
first half of this year afforded an opportunity to strengthen
the EU's commitment to poverty eradication and conflict prevention,
as evidenced through the adoption of the EU Code of Conduct on
Arms Exports, the Development Council's conclusions on the follow-up
to the 1993 Resolution on the Fight against Poverty, and the EU
negotiating mandate for the successor to the Lomé Convention.
However, these commitments do not yet appear to have been fully
integrated within the allocation and management of the European
Community Development Budget.
"The Union is the most important provider
of international aid." "The Community and its Member
States finance half of the international development assistance.
. . (and). . . are responsible for well over half of the humanitarian
aid distributed throughout the world." (Agenda 2000, European
Commission).
[9]
2.3 EU development aid totalled 5.1 billion
ECU in 1995, just over half of which is channelled through the
EC budget. Agenda 2000, in which the European Commission outlines
its proposals for EU activities during the period of enlargement
from 2000-2006, calls for the EU's external action to become more
visible and outlines a number of the institutional changes required
to enable the EU to make most effective use of its available resources.
2.4 The EC development budget covers assistance
to Asia and Latin America (ALA) (867.5 mEURO)[10],
Mediterranean and Middle East countries (MEDA) (1,149.7 mEURO),
the Central and East European States (CEECs, (1,124.8 mEURO) and
the republics of former Yugoslavia (259 mEURO), the New Independent
States (NIS) (501.9 mEURO), as well as non-country specific budget
lines, including allocations for food and humanitarian aid (855.1
mEURO) and democracy and the protection of human rights (97.4
mEURO). Allocation of these resources is carried out through a
number of different mechanisms. While multi-annual programmes
for the CEECs and NIS are prepared in co-operation with partner
organisations, through the Phare and Technical Assistance (Tacis)
programmes {and are augmented by food aid provided through the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)}, and
MEDA resources are likewise allocated through 3 yearly indicative
programmes, the Commission has greater flexibility and autonomy
in the allocation of ALA funds and non-country specific budget
lines.
2.5 Commitment to eradicate poverty and build
sustainable development within EU activities will require the
integration of conflict prevention perspectives within the regional
allocation, national programming and local management of the resources
available within the EC development budget. While development
aid is provided within Pillar 1 activities, also of importance
in efforts to develop sustainable peace is the newly established
budget for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) activities
(30 mEURO), carried out under Pillar 2.
3. PRIORITISING POVERTY
ERADICATION IN
REGIONAL ALLOCATION
OF RESOURCES
3.1 Despite its commitment to poverty eradication,
the allocation of EC development aid is disproportionately skewed
towards middle income as opposed to low income countries. The
Central and East European and Mediterranean and Middle East countries
are increasingly favoured over Asian countries, despite the fact
that 950 million of the 1.3 billion people who live on less than
$1 per day are in Asia.[11]
Furthermore, there are serious concerns that EU enlargement will
increasingly divert available EC development resources to facilitate
the accession of new members of the Union. While the increased
stability which enlargement may engender is clearly to be welcomed,
as the Commission itself recognises, this should not be at the
expense of efforts to support development and peace within the
EU's wider external relations.
"The Union will have to ensure that enlargement
to Central and Eastern Europe serves as a bridge to reinforce
its relations with countries in the surrounding region and beyond,
and does not give rise to perceptions that it may be less open
to the world." (Agenda 2000, European Commission)
[12]
3.2 Future funding proposed within the 1999
Preliminary budget appears to further accentuate existing regional
bias, with allocation of resources disproportionate to recent
spending. For example, although there has been signficant underspending
in the MEDA programmes,[13]
the Commission does not propose major shifts of unused resources
to those regions, such as the Asian countries, whose share of
total aid has been squeezed.[14]
Indeed, the 1999 Preliminary Draft Budget proposes an increase
of 29 per cent in the CEECs' budget and a 1.45 per cent decrease
for Asian countries.
A greater concentration of resources on low
income countries is essential if the aim of poverty eradication
is to be met within the EC's future development budget.
4. SUPPORTING SUSTAINABLE
PEACE AND
DEVELOPMENT IN
AID PROGRAMMING
4.1 Although it is increasingly recognised that
"a political environment guaranteeing peace and stability,
respect for human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law
and good governance is a prerequisite for development aid",[15]
there have been difficulties in channelling funds to support the
building of such an environment within allocations to specific
countries and regions. There has, for example, been underspending
on the promotion of human rights and democracy within ACP countries,[16]
Asia[17]
and the MEDA programme.[18]
There have been difficulties in effective disbursement of funds
to support regional economic and political integration within
the MEDA[19]
and the ACP regions. There has also been unwillingness to allocate
development resources to a number of those areas, such as reform
of the security sector and disarmament, on which the establishment
of security depends. It is hoped that the newly established CFSP
budget may enable increased support to such initiatives (see further
below).
4.2 Given the plethora of EC budget lines, each
with their own specific objectives, it is at present extremely
difficult to provide a detailed and comprehensive analysis of
EC development aid.
There is a need for greater transparency
and accessibility of information on EC development aid reported
in a format which is readily comprehensible to a wide range of
audiences in both Europe and the countries which benefit from
EC development programmes.
4.3 Despite the need for improved information,
it is clear that the current and proposed allocation and management
of resources are not coherent with the EC and EU member states'
commitment to build sustainable development and prioritise conflict
prevention. Given existing commitments to refocus resources, the
EU will need to strengthen the capacities of both the EU institutions
to take a more proactive role in identifying suitable projects,
as well as the governments and civil society organisations of
beneficiary countries to enable the most effective use of the
limited resources available.
4.4 Fulfilment of the commitment to poverty
elimination, and the concomitant need to support capacity to prevent
violent conflict, will also require review of those mechanisms
and sectors in which the EU is providing assistance to ensure
that development cooperation is effective in supporting national
and regional efforts to build a democratic and lasting stake in
peace. This will, in particular, require increased attention to
the following areas:
Supporting good governance
4.5 It is vital that EC development assistance
supports the strengthening of governmental capacity to provide
an environment enabling social and economic development. This
requires, for example, providing assistance to the establishment
of impartial and independent judicial systems and mechanisms to
ensure the accountability of law-enforcement personnel, increased
respect of human rights and the rule of law and support to the
development of representative groups from civil society.
4.6 Where the governments of recipient countries
share commitment to prioritise democratic development, including
the promotion of and respect for human rights and the rule of
law, the EC will need to address constraints to poverty elimination,
including the servicing of debts accrued by previous undemocratic
regimes. During the current review of the World Bank and IMF's
Highly Indebted Poor Country Initiative (HIPC), frustration that
the scheme "is delivering too little too late"[20]
has led to proposals for increased debt reductions for those countries
that agree to spend savings from debt relief on health, education
and social welfare spending,[21]
as well as "debt relief for peace" to strengthen the
capacities of countries emerging from long-term conflict (see
further page 6 below).
4.7 Where there is a lack of accountable
governance, the Commission will need to prioritise and support
the efforts of non-state bodies working to promote transparent
and representative government at local, national and regional
levels (see further page 7 below on the need for increased
capacity of European Commission staff).
Security sector reform
4.8 Despite increased readiness to recognise
that sustainable development is dependent on structural stability—"the
capacity to manage change without recourse to violence"[22]—including
democratic, civilian control of the armed forces, the European
Commission has been reluctant to engage in support of security
sector reform.[23]
To promote such reform, it is important for the international
community to support the capacity of beneficiary countries to:
strengthen and professionalise civilian institutions of both the
state and civil society (including, for example, the ministries
of finance, defence, internal affairs, and justice; parliamentary
committees on foreign affairs, defence; and human rights ombudsmen)
to manage and monitor the security sectors. It will also require
assistance to professionalise security forces, for example through
human rights training, and support for disarmament and demobilisation
and reintegration efforts, particularly in the aftermath of civil
war.
4.9 The EC has provided assistance to programmes
for demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants in a
number of post-conflict situations. However, it has been unwilling
to support the reform required to increase the capacity and accountability
of those police and military forces responsible for building a
secure environment for development; neither has it supported measures
to remove from circulation excess arms and avoid recoiling of
weapons to new sites of regional conflict.
4.10 Within the development of CFSP activities,
the EU in 1997 established an "EU programme for preventing
and combating illicit trafficking in conventional arms".[24]
Support for disarmament has also been included within the range
of CFSP activities, to which a budget of 5.75 mEURO has been allocated
for 1998 and 1999. These developments are extremely welcome, but
alone are unlikely to provide the tremendous resources needed
to establish the environment required for sustainable development.
4.11 Given that the reluctance of the Commission
to engage in this area is in part due to sensitivities of individual
EU member states over the Commission's direct involvement in security
issues,[25]
a statement from the EU Development Council clearly identifying
the importance for EU development programmes to prioritise support
to security sector reform could promote Commission engagement
in a sector vital for the achievement of poverty elimination targets.
4.12 As in other areas which receive EC development
aid, security sector reform cannot be imposed. Support should
be conditional on recognition by the recipient government and
its national security institutions that reform is required and
will enable increased investment in the pursuit of poverty elimination
and adherence to the democratic values which the EU is committed
to promote.
Post-conflict rehabilitation
4.13 While the EC continues to allocate significant
resources to humanitarian aid and emergency relief—amounting
to more than 10 per cent of the Community's development co-operation
resources in 1994[26]—the
Commission remains reluctant to engage in addressing the underlying
causes which give rise to these needs. One reason for this is
that the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) is unwilling
to risk losing the neutrality which might result from their direct
engagement in conflict prevention initiatives.
4.14 In situations of ongoing conflict, it is
important that ECHO constantly reviews its policies to ensure
that assistance is provided in a manner which is least likely
to exacerbate existing tensions. ECHO's strict interpretation
of its humanitarian mandate should not, however, preclude its
involvement in joint planning at the Brussels level.[27]
Indeed, there have been efforts to implement the Commission's
policy on Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development through
inter-service co-ordination between ECHO and the directorates
responsible for the Community's development programmes (DGs IA,
IB and VIII), as well as the development of a number of budget
lines which encompass support to assist repatriation and resettlement,[28]
with proposals to establish a similar facility within the review
of the Lomé Convention.[29]
These initiatives should be strengthened.
4.15 However, given continuing constraints to
supporting governments newly emerging from conflict, the EC
needs to review current mechanisms for responding to the extensive
needs existing in the immediate aftermath of violent conflict
and overcome current obstacles to providing sufficient support
through alternative, non-state mechanisms.
4.16 In post-conflict situations where recipient
countries have established a minimum level of security and benefit
from governmental commitment to democratic values, the Commission
also needs to develop mechanisms which enable significant support
to peace-building programmes, including supporting proposals to
initiate "debt relief for peace".
5. ENHANCING THE
EC'S ANALYTICAL
AND DECISION-MAKING
CAPACITIES
5.1 Decision-making within the Commission which
is best able to promote fulfilment of the EU's commitments to
combat poverty and prevent violent conflict will require building
the institution's capacity with regard to programming, as well
as the allocation and management of funds. This will particularly
require investment in:
Improved political analysis
5.2 Increased awareness of the need "to
see political decisions at the forefront"[30]
underlines the necessity for EC development programming to be
informed by comprehensive strategies which ensure the coherence
of the range of the EU's external policies with development initiatives.
Efforts to promote sustainable peace and development would be
greatly strengthened through ensuring that political and security
analysis informs the development of the EC's country and regional
strategies and how EC assistance and other instruments may best
address existing concerns, as well as the inclusion of conflict
prevention within the criteria and indicators for formulating
and measuring project development.[31]
5.3 The forthcoming establishment of a Policy
Planning and Early Warning Unit provides an opportunity to ensure
that the full range of EU's external relations support conflict
prevention. It is important that the Unit does not limit it
activities to responding only to the EU's immediate political
concerns, but also encompasses a conflict prevention perspective
which considers the medium and longer-term social and economic
risks which increase vulnerability to violent conflict. Ensuring
the unit's capacity to develop common strategies which can inform
the range of the EU's external relations, including the allocation
and management of EC development budgets, will require staffing
with experience and understanding of those factors which underpin
"structural stability" and how the EU can make most
effective use of its available instruments to support the development
of an environment conducive to sustainable peace.
Increased capacity of European Commission staff,
and particularly within its country delegations
5.4 Ongoing restructuring of the Commission,
including the pooling of its External Services, implementation
of all community external aid projects and programmes through
a Common Service and increase delegation to the Commission's country
missions, provide important opportunities for maximising the efficacy
of EC development assistance.
5.5 With DGVIII's circulation of a note instructing
Delegations "to increase efforts for political analysis",[32]
Commission staff have a clear mandate to ensure their capacity
to monitor and respond to evolving situations. However, the Commission
does not at present have sufficient capacity in terms of the number
and training of its staff to fully implement this approach. If
efforts to improve the efficacy of EC development aid are to be
effective, restructuring will need to ensure the integration
of conflict prevention within the allocation and management of
EC development aid, and particularly through the recruitment and
training of sufficient numbers of appropriately qualified staff.
5.6 Integration of conflict prevention within
EC development aid programming will also require deepened and
broader engagement with the line ministries and institutions of
partner governments as well as establishing mechanisms for regular
dialogue between the staff of the Commission delegation and representatives
of civil society.
5.7 Effective engagement in countries whose
governments do not prioritise the building of an environment conducive
to poverty elimination will require the European Commission to
carry out significant investment in the capacity of both its headquarters
and delegation staff to identify and oversee the management of
support to a number of smaller, non-state initiatives.
Strengthened coherence and co-ordination of efforts
between the EC and EU member states
5.8 Achievement of universally agreed development
targets will remain dependent on the EC ensuring that other areas
of the EU's external relations, including its economic and political
policies, are coherent with and do not undermine efforts to combat
poverty and build peace. Prioritising poverty elimination targets
will also require active pursuit of EC development objectives
within its relations with EU member states as well as the international
bodies of which these states are members.
5.9 Policy coherence is essential to effective
international action. For example, developing an environment which
allows the prioritisation of the needs of the poorest requires
building effective programmes of economic assistance, including
debt relief. This is an area in which the UK has already taken
an important lead, supporting debt relief in countries seeking
to prioritise social investment.[33]
To date, the EC has limited its assistance to providing structural
adjustment support which seeks to alleviate the negative impact
of required economic reform. While Agenda 2000 recognises the
need for concerted international efforts to enhance the effectiveness
of the European Community external financial assistance,[34]
the Community and EU member states will need to challenge international
policies which do not directly promote the needs of the poor and
increase tensions in situations already vulnerable to violent
conflict.
Saferworld
October 1998
1 COM(97)2000, Agenda 2000, Vol.I, For a stronger
and wider Union, p.35. Back
2
Article 130u, Treaty on European Union. Back
3
Also included within Article 130u, TEU. Back
4
As included within the DAC report, Shaping the 21st Century:
the Contribution of Development Co-operation, May 1996. Back
5
Including the Common Position concerning conflict prevention
and resolution in Africa (97/356/CFSP) and the Resolution
on Coherence of the EC's Development Co-operation with its other
Policies (8631/97). Back
6
Guidelines for negotiation of new co-operation agreements with
the ACP countries, Communication from the Commission to the
Council and the European Parliament, COM(97)537. Back
7
Department for International Development, Eliminating World
Poverty: White Paper on International Development, November
1997, paras 3.49 and 3.50. Back
8
Ibid, p.36. Back
9
Op.cit. note 1, p.38. Back
10
Figures from the current EC development and CFSP budgets are taken
from the 1998 budget, as included within the Preliminary Draft
Budget for 1999. Back
11
UNDP, Human Development Report 1997, p3. Back
12
COM(97)2000, Agenda 2000, Vol.I, The Challenge of enlargement,
p.4. Back
13
The MEDA was underspent, with payment of only 404 mEURO of the
1,078 mEURO committed in 1997, Draft General Budget of the EC
for the financial year 1999, Volume 4, Council of the EU. Back
14
ALA's share of total aid declined slightly from 15.3 per cent
in 1986-90 to 13.6 per cent in 1991-956, from Aidan Cox and Antonique
Koning, Understanding European Community Aid, 1997, p.81. Back
15
Preamble to the draft negotiating directives for a development
partnership agreement with the ACP countries, 1998. Back
16
12.7m EURO was spent of the 17m EURO committed in 1997, and 17.5m
EURO of 25m EURO committed in 1998, op.cit. note 9. Back
17
2 of 5m EURO committed in 1998, op. cit. note 9. Back
18
Just less than 50 per cent of allocated funds were spent in 1998
(5m EURO of 10.1m committed), op.cit. note 9. Back
19
Only 54m ECU of 165m ECU committed in 1995, from Aidan Cox and
Antonique Koning, Understanding European Community Aid, p.68. Back
20
As Kevin Watkins of Oxfam put it. . ."It is farcical that
in the two years since the launch of the initiative that only
country has received multi-lateral debt relief", from Larry
Elliott, "Short shrift for the world's highly indebted countries",
The Guardian, October 5 1998. Back
21
Proposals from Oxfam, included within the following articles:
"Finally, relief in sight", Robert Chote, Financial
Times, 8 September 1998, and "Short shrift for the world's
highly indebted countries", The Guardian, 5 October
1998. Back
22
Commission Communication on The European Union and the Issues
of Conflict in Africa: Peacebuilding, Conflict Prevention and
Beyond, Sec (96) 332, March 1996. Back
23
With growing recognition of the links between sustainable peace
and development, a number of EU member states are developing mechanisms
which will allow increased support from development budgets for
security sector reform. Back
24
CFSP 9057/97. Back
25
Article 223 of the TEU, on EU arms trading, has been interpreted
restrictively, placing all issues relating to arms beyond the
competence of EU. Back
26
DAC/OECD, Development Co-operation Review Series-European Community,
1996, p10. Back
27
Conflict Prevention and the European Union, Mapping the actors,
instruments and Institutions, Alexander Costy and Stefan Gilbert,
1998, FEWER and International Alert, p28-29. Back
28
Budget lines B7-641, Rehabilitation and reconstruction measures
for the developing countries, particularly ACP states; B7-217,
Operations to help refugees, displaced persons and returnees;
and B7-543, Measures for rehabilitation of the Republics formerly
part of Yugoslavia. Back
29
Section 4.2(c), A facility for humanitarian crises and risks of
such crises, op. cit. note 5, p30. Back
30
Address by Philip Lowe on The future of the European Union's
development programme, Wilton Park, September 1998. Back
31
A recent Commission initiative to develop a manual of best practice
for EU support to peace-building will be an important conflict
prevention tool. Back
32
Office of the Director General, DGVIII, "Note to the Heads
of DGVIII Services and Heads of Delegations in ACP countries and
South Africa", 9 June 1997. Back
33
Labour Party Conference 1998, Blackpool, Speech by Clare Short
MP, Secretary of State for International Development, 2 October
1998, during which a further contribution of Pds30m was announced
to help the Africa Development Bank write off debts to highly
indebted countries. Back
34
Op. cit. note 1, p39. Back
| 
