Conclusions and recommendations
Relations between the EU organisations with responsibility
for development
1. We
are concerned that two separate European Commission departments
dealing with development aid and humanitarian aid pose problems
for linking relief, rehabilitation and development. Furthermore,
clarity is needed on roles and responsibilities between the European
External Action Service (EEAS) and the Directorate-General of
EuropeAid, Development and Co-operation (DG DEVCO)in the programming
process. The UK Government should seek reassurances that DG DEVCO,
the Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection
(ECHO)and the EEAS are working together in a coherent and coordinated
manner and that anti-poverty objectives are not being marginalised
within the EEAS. (Paragraph 20)
Disadvantages
2. Although
the European Commission has higher administration costs for development
than DFID it is difficult to compare like for like. The Commission
does far more direct work which requires a greater level of administration.
We urge however, the Government to continue to stress the need
for value for money. (Paragraph 31)
3. The UK Government
should push the European Commission to improve its policy capacity,
given its status as the largest supplier of development aid in
the world. (Paragraph 34)
4. We welcome the
Government's commitment to improve the bureaucracy of procurement
at the European Commission but there still seems to be a long
way to go. The Government must put more pressure on the Commission
to make further improvements. (Paragraph 40)
5. It is unacceptable
that only 46% of aid disbursed through European institutions goes
to low income countries. It devalues the concept of aid when so
much of what is defined as Official Development Assistance (ODA)
goes to relatively rich countries such as Turkey. We do not agree
with the Government that it should not seek to change the definition
of what qualifies as ODA—money given to higher middle income
countries should not be classified as ODA, nor do we believe it
is right to keep the present definition as a way of fudging the
figures to meet the 0.7% target. The UK must continue to press
for funding to be diverted from those higher middle income countries,
who have their own resources to provide for their people, to give
greater help to the poorest people in the world, including in
lower income countries. (Paragraph 45)
Conclusion
6. The
UK has a certain amount of choice whether it spends its aid bilaterally
or through multilaterals. Although we have acknowledged that there
are some problems with channelling aid through the European Commission
for example the large amount of aid going to middle income countries
and its slow bureaucracy, on balance we are not convinced it is
any worse than the other multilaterals DFID funds, for example
the World Bank which we have previously reported our concerns
on. However DFID should continue to press the Commission to improve
its aid effectiveness and value for money. (Paragraph 46)
Human rights, good governance and greater democracy
- conditionality
7. We
need to be careful that money spent is not directly or indirectly
used for the wrong purposes by the heads of corrupt regimes.
However we also agree with the UK Government that conditionality
should not punish the poorest people for the sins of their governments.
(Paragraph 53)
Economic growth and the private sector
8. We
support both the UK Government and the European Commission's focus
on wealth creation through the private sector. DFID needs to get
clarification from the European Commission on what this means
in practice, how it is to be achieved, and in particular, how
the Commission intends to support local business and ensure access
to finance for small to medium-sized businesses or entrepreneurs
in developing countries. (Paragraph 58)
Policy coherence
9. Greater
policy coherence in Europe on development is a worthy aim. There
has been a slight improvement in the trade agenda and the Minister
is optimistic on the potential for coherence between Climate Change
and Development policies. However, as African academics have highlighted,
the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) could do more
good than anything else. DFID needs to take a greater role in
UK Government discussions highlighting the damage done by both
tariff and non-tariff barriers to the developing world. In particular
DFID should press Commissioner Piebalgs to engage widely in Europe
on development, challenging those with vested interests in the
CAP and who oppose its reform. There needs to be a much tougher
approach to joined up government on development. (Paragraph 62)
Joint programming
10. We
have concerns that, although joint programming has the potential
to prevent the overlap of Member State bilateral programmes and
reduce transaction cost for recipient countries, the European
Commission does not necessarily have the capacity or the expertise
to lead the coordination. The lead donor who coordinates policy
for bilateral donors should be the one with the most experience
in the area and a proven track record. (Paragraph 68)
Differentiated development partnerships
11. We
support the European Commission's proposals for differentiated
partnerships, and in particular, that there should be a reduction
in the number of countries in which the Commission has a programme.
However, the Commission should go further. So far the proposals
have been focused on the Development Co-operation Instrument.
We believe that this should also cover countries who receive funding
under the European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument and those
who are members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group covered
by the European Development Fund. (Paragraph 75)
Budget support
12. Whilst
we approve of the concept of budget support we also recognise
that it has its limitations when countries are emerging from conflict
and are fragile. It is only suitable in countries with sound administrative
capacity and a reasonable record of pluralism and human rights.
(Paragraph 79)
European Development Fund budgetisation
13. We
do not support the European Development Fund (EDF) becoming part
of the main European Commission budget in 2014, six years before
the expiry of the Cotonou Agreement. EDF budgetisation should
only be considered if: there is a shift in European Commission
budget funding away from middle income countries to the poorest
people and the poorest countries; it can be used as a way to get
other Member States to contribute more; and there is thorough
consultation with the ACP. The future of the EDF should be discussed
in parallel to the future of EU-ACP relations. (Paragraph 84)
Development Cooperation Instrument
14. In
light of the results of DFID's Multilateral Aid Review we are
not convinced that the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI)
should get a larger percentage increase in its funding than the
European Development Fund. We recommend the UK Government negotiates
for a smaller increase to the DCI unless efficiency and effectiveness
is significantly improved. (Paragraph 88)
The 0.7% target
15. We
agree with the Minister that the UK should continue to lead by
example in making progress towards the 0.7% target. It is only
by meeting the target ourselves can we continue to put pressure
on other EU Member States to do the same, particularly Germany,
France and Italy. (Paragraph 93)
| 
