Amidst all the concern about the effects of the global economic and financial crisis, there has been much analysis about its consequences for the markets, employment, the future nature of capitalism, migration, and the prospects for a green economy. There has been significantly less talk about the setbacks this global financial crisis may have on international development assistance (ODA) and on donor countries’ commitment to the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

With the exception of various UN agencies and some of the more prominent development NGOs who are ringing the alarm bells, most other actors are busy turning their attention to domestic concerns. And, it is very likely that this will translate into donor governments according higher priority – in political and financial terms- to domestic concerns than external obligations.

If the risk of witnessing decreasing attention about ODA is growing on the part of traditional donor countries, then this is even more the case for ‘newer’ donor countries, i.e. countries that have only recently started becoming more active in developing ODA policies and priorities. Quite a few EU member states fall within this latter category. Many of the central European member states are new donor countries, as are the EU’s southern member states. The challenge to maintain the level of commitment that these countries have started to demonstrate over the past decade is high. And it is possibly more difficult than it currently is for older donor countries. In effect, the newer actors in this field are still in the process of formulating, institutionalising and implementing a coherent ODA strategy and in consolidating a ‘donor’ culture within the relevant state institutions, their NGO community and their public opinion.

In this context, it may be necessary to point out what matters for effective ODA to be developed on the part of new donors. Why? In order to know where we need to continue to focus on so as to maintain as high a level of commitment as possible on the part of the entire international donor community, and as coherent and effective a development cooperation policy on the part of the EU as a whole, and this concerns the newer EU donors just as much as the older ones. The commitment to international assistance and to the Millennium Development Goals has been made on the part of all 27 EU Member States together.

The list is long, but the following 7 points can be singled out as key:
1.    Domestic institutional coordination matters: To have an integrated and coherent ODA (that includes planning, management, implementation and evaluation), coordination and cooperation between the specialised institutions that deal with ODA –units within the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, of Finance, or separate Agencies at the national or regional levels– is necessary in order to share objectives, combine instruments, maximise potential impact and then feed this into the next planning phases. This is even more necessary when financial resources are tight and risk becoming tighter in future.
2. International coordination matters: A number of international and regional summits and meetings have been held over the past months that have brought together governments and other actors to exchange views and perspectives on how to best manage the crisis and mitigate its effects. The Doha Summit last November concentrated on the financial crisis and international development assistance challenges.  The next conference is planned for 2013, in between however, the momentum needs to continue at the highest levels of policy making in order to reiterate international commitments to combat global poverty and inequality.
3. Words matter: ‘Empty rhetoric’ on ODA is obviously not constructive, particularly at times where expectations and insecurities –perceived and real- are high. However, continuing to publically emphasise the importance of core concepts such as human security and disseminating new thinking on development, cooperation, poverty and peace is constructive because it may influence mentalities and in turn translate into concrete policy actions. ‘Concept transfer’ is essentially about exposure to certain approaches and the adoption of a relevant vocabulary in official declarations, reports, speeches and even calls for tender. This incrementally trickles into the planning and policy formulation and gradually is reflected in the projects that are funded and implemented on the ground.
4. Having a plan matters: Development cooperation is a long-term strategic commitment, and needs to continue being considered as such. The planning and formulation phases of ODA are crucial because these determine the impact that development assistance may have on the projects implemented in the recipient countries. Equally important is the need to have an evaluation mechanism in order to fine-tune and adapt ODA to maximise its results. This requires clarity of vision and of scope about what ODA is about – particularly during crisis periods such as the one we are currently going through.
5. People matter: Staffing the institutions that deal with ODA (i.e. in the Ministries or the relevant Development Agencies) and the national representations (i.e. Embassies) in the recipient countries with appropriately qualified personnel is important. This is necessary not only for the quality of the ODA programming, but also ensuring a feedback loop between the central planning actors and those who are close to what is happening on the ground in order to be able to communicate and take into consideration constraints, limitations, opportunities and expectations from both ends. This two-way communication is particularly useful during times of crisis and transition.
6. A proactive civil society matters: NGOs, particularly those active in the field of development cooperation, are relative new-comers in new donor countries. This sector is only recently beginning to get organised in order to influence policy formulation or act as an implementing partner to state ODA policies. It is important that in this period of crisis, civil society representatives translate the potential that they have been developing into pressure towards their governments to maintain their ODA commitments and that they adapt their own strategies in the field to take into consideration the changes that may result from the global crisis.
7. Sensitivising public opinion matters: There is a significant gap in public opinion awareness and support of ODA in new donor countries. The ‘shift’ in mentalities that their country has changed from a recipient to an international donor has not occurred in most cases. With domestic socio-economic conditions deteriorating in many of these new EU donor countries, there is bound to be a public pressure that governments concentrate on addressing domestic difficulties, suggesting that international assistance is for when economic growth permits, or even that international assistance is ‘someone else’s responsibility.’ In this context, governments and NGOs active in development cooperation will have to go the extra mile to sensitive public opinion of the importance for all to contribute their share to the fight against global poverty and inequality.

The complexity, magnitude and global dimensions of the current crisis are such that it is important that all donor countries – new and old-  remain aware of the importance to stay as committed as possible to their stated ODA goals and efforts. In certain cases, particularly in Africa, if the financing-line gets cut, the effects may be devastating for development efforts, encouraging long-term economic growth prospects, and good governance. The ethical dimension of respecting ODA commitments and MDG objectives is one dimension that Kofi Annan recently pointed out. The other dimension concerns the extent of today’s global interdependence which means that the negative effects of decrease in ODA will further aggravate global inequality and its socio-economic and political implications for security, peace and human development – and this cannot be dismissed.

———
For more about capacity building in ODA, visit the Initiative for Peacebuilding (IfP) website by clicking here. The IfP is an on-going network among ten EU think tanks and NGOs and funded by the European Commission. Among a number of other priorities relating to development, security, environmental concerns and peace, this network is exploring ODA policies of 7 EU member states who have developed their international development assistance policies mainly over the past decade. To read the report on Greek development cooperation assistance and peacebuilding, click here.