Accountability

Key questions ¦ Background ¦ Recommendations ¦ Post your comment

Key questions

The EC faces multiple accountabilities, while in practice it needs to focus on a limited number of interlocutors when formulating and implementing EC development policies.

  • What is the best way to organise an open discussion about what different stakeholders expect from the EC? Comment
  • Through what reporting systems should the EC account for its aid? Comment
  • How can the EC satisfy the long-standing demands of CSOs for greater consultation, involvement and information-sharing? Comment
  • What innovative ways could be developed for measuring impact? Comment
  • How can the EC promote aid accountability to citizens and parliaments in partner countries? Comment

  • Do the Paris Declaration targets divert political energy and commitments away from the MDGs towards a donor-driven agenda? Comment
  • How can the development sector move from project accountability towards accountability for aid effectiveness? Comment

What is your opinion on these key questions? Do you have additional suggestions?

Background

The EC is a one-of-a-kind donor: it is not part of the multilateral system per se, nor is it accountable in the way that bilateral donors are, notwithstanding the European Parliament and the monitoring activities of Civil Society. Viewed positively, this peculiar status can insulate it from the direct political pressures experienced by bilateral programmes, which are reflected in practices such as tied aid. On the other hand, this can reduce scrutiny and responsiveness. Current discussions on the European Parliament’s scrutiny of CSPs and the role of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly attest to ongoing tensions over increased transparency and democracy in the European aid programme.

The EC has to deal with multiple accountabilities:

  • The systems of checks and balances within the EU inter-institutional settings (the Commission towards the Council and the Parliament);
  • Accountability towards European tax payers;
  • Accountability between legislative and executive powers in partner countries;
  • Accountability towards the citizens of the partner countries;
  • Accountability towards the rest of the donor community.

There are divergent views on the best ways for the EC to discharge its accountability, and how to strike the right balance between quantity objectives (such as speeding up disbursement) and quality objectives (such as increasing predictability). Many feel that the EC needs to go beyond providing financial data, by demonstrating results and value for money.

The role of citizens and parliaments in holding the EC accountable, both in the North and in the South, is often mentioned as being far too limited. However, some feel that ‘too much’ accountability risks overburdening the EC, drawing away resources for implementation and slowing the disbursement process. Another concern is that the accountability demands placed on development partners in order to satisfy Member States’ and the EP’s fiduciary conditions end up diverting recipient governments’ attention from being more accountable to their own populations. Finally, the emphasis on fiduciary accountability (i.e. preventing misuse of funds) may leave little time and energy for accountability for actual impact on the ground.

Please consult the initial discussion note for an in-depth discussion of these issues. You are invited to comment.

Recommendations

The following recommendations on the EC’s accountability over its aid were made during our interviews with key groups of stakeholders. For an overall list of recommendations, click here.

  • Change the relation around aid: trust, dialogue, accountability including public information (comment);
  • Make a collective effort to widen and deepen the debate on EC Aid (MS, EP, NGOs) beyond the usual obligatory and rather consensual exercise (comment);
    • Need to step out from a bilateral EC-government relation and involve other stakeholders (parliaments, local authorities, NGOs) in programming, monitoring, evaluation etc. (comment);
    • Support the engagement of civil society in debates, but also in programming and implementation (comment);
    • Stimulate interest in EC aid policy, including within the European and national Parliaments (comment);
    • Increase public awareness on EC development cooperation in the EU and in partner countries (comment);
  • Clarify what is expected in terms of monitoring/reporting by ‘users’ (comment).

Share your recommendations.