Key questions ¦ Background ¦ Recommendations ¦ Post your comment
Key questions
- What are the advantages of the EC as a possible intermediary for (new) EU MS to meet their ODA commitments? Comment
- How can the EC’s coordinating role in the field and in Brussels be improved? Comment
- To what extent does the EC have the capacity and credibility vis à vis Member States and other donors to represent the EU in international fora? Comment
- How can EC Heads of Delegations distinguish between opportunities to lead and opportunities to federate European cooperation in the field? Comment
- To what extent should the EC take a lead in the coordinating role, and in particular should coordination focus on the EU? Does the EC have sufficient capacity and credibility vis à vis other donors to take on this coordinating function? Comment
- When should the national authorities be encouraged to take the lead for coordination in the field and how can the EC best support them? Comment
- How far has the EU pushed real complementarity and what possibility does the EC have in practice to encourage all EU countries to focus on sectors/areas where they have a comparative advantage? Comment
What is your opinion on these key questions? Do you have additional suggestions? You are invited to comment.
Background
The EC is a sizeable donor in its own right, especially with its global presence, but it also has a facilitating role at the European policy level. The large volume of EC aid, the EC’s widespread presence in the field (with more than 120 delegations), and its perceived political neutrality are often cited as specific areas of added value. Importantly, the role of the EC as a ‘developer of development policy’ is widely recognised as a very specific asset: it is able to facilitate debate on a number of issues that Member States find difficult to make progress on. An important example is the adoption in May 2007 of the EU Code of Conduct on the Division of Labour, where the EC encouraged Member States to engage in open, free-flowing discussions.
Nevertheless, the EU is not yet positioned as a ‘global actor’. The relatively weak profile and capacity of the EC affects the EU’s ability to actively coordinate among Member States, and to represent its members in global forums. Progress in the areas of coordination, coherence and complementarity may have the potential to improve this situation.
The EC and the 3 Cs – Coordination, coherence and complementarity
The coordinating role of the EC is widely accepted, although the political space given by the Member States is often limited. The more political the debate is in European capitals on any particular issue, the less the EC seems to be able to facilitate coordination. When the political sensitivity of a given topic prevents consensus, the EC usually addresses it from a rather technical angle in order to move the debate forward. Recipient governments seem to welcome a stronger coordinating function for the EC. While coordination at the highest policy levels may be sensitive issue, in the field and with multilateral bodies it is often already practiced in various forms by the EC.
With regards to complementarity, the Code of Conduct on the Division of Labour is seen as vital to move this process forward. Future programming of aid may foster joint strategies in an increasing number of partner countries, thereby reducing the number of sector interventions per donor while guaranteeing proper consideration of the partner’s needs. The possibility for joint programming under EC management also provides an interesting opportunity for complementarity, especially for new Member States (who have smaller bilateral programmes and less developed policy frameworks). However, actual progress in reaching complementarity so far is seen as limited by some observers.
The coherence of EC policies is another important element that relates to the EC’s added value, since the existence of trade and foreign policy instruments alongside aid is a widely advertised advantage of EC development policy. The literature reviewed so far indicates that coherence needs to be strengthened both in terms of other policies conflicting with development interests and in terms of the EC’s own internal organisation. For instance, some have pointed out the Common Agricultural Policy and the Economic Partnership Agreements as clear examples of incoherence in EU external policies. The first biannual report on Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) is intended to monitor progress made on the EU’s commitments since 2005. It is seen as a useful step towards greater information sharing on PCD within the EU.
Overall, there those interviewed in the context of this project seem to agree that the EC’s capcity to make progress on the 3Cs is largely dependent on what Member States are willing to do themselves. Although the EC’s role as an occasional catalyst for dialogue is valued, the record of the EU as a whole in implementing the 3Cs is still rather limited.
Please consult the initial discussion note for an in-depth discussion of these issues. You are invited to comment.
Recommendations
The following recommendations on EC aid’s added value were made during our interviews with key groups of stakeholders. For an overall list of recommendations, click here.
- Make progress in joint programming between the Commission and Member States (Comment);
- Use EDF 10 as a test case on a number of key reform issues such as joint programming, division of labour in practice and better ownership of the governance agenda (Comment);
- Adapt the perception between policies and impact on poverty reduction (Comment);
Share your recommendations.
