Publish What You Fund
The Global Campaign for Aid Transparency
www.publishwhatyoufund.org
04 JUNE 2010
Contact: Claudia Elliot
Communications Assistant
Publish What You Fund
+44 07792-114-449
claudia.elliot@publishwhatyoufund.org
Publish What You Fund Welcomes UK Aid Transparency Guarantee
London – Publish What You Fund yesterday welcomed the announcement of a new “Aid Transparency Guarantee” by the UK Government. The Guarantee promises that “aid information will be made fully transparent to citizens in both the UK and recipient countries”. Implementing these standards in the UK and advocating for other donors to adopt the same will result in a significant increase in aid effectiveness.
Upon being appointed Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell pledged to increase aid transparency as a means of achieving greater value for money in aid for the UK taxpayer, contributing to the government-wide drive toward financial accountability.
Building on the UK’s leading role within the International Aid Transparency Initiative, the Guarantee states that:
· “Information published will be comprehensive, accessible, comparable, accurate and timely.
· We will allow anyone to reuse our information, including to create new applications which make it easier to see where aid is being spent.”
(ref “The UKaid Transparency Guarantee”, Department for International Development”)
Critically, the UK will also advocate for these standards of aid transparency internationally:
· “Requiring, over time, any civil society organisation that is in direct receipt of DFID funds to adhere to similar standards of transparency and accountability, and pushing multilateral organisations to do the same. This means that UK taxpayers will be able to better see where their money is being spent.
· Pressing other donors – bilateral, multilateral and non-traditional – to adhere to similar standards of transparency as set out in the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). This will make it much easier for people to see all the aid from all donors, and get a full picture of the aid being spent in each country.”
(ref “The UKaid Transparency Guarantee”, Department for International Development”)
“This important announcement gives the international campaign for aid transparency fresh momentum – with new UK leadership on IATI the possibility of a meaningful global consensus on aid transparency is closer than ever before. The UK government deserves praise for this dramatic step towards ensuring aid transparency by making sure all information is made available, accessible, comprehensive, timely and comparable,” said Publish What You Fund Director Karin Christiansen.
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2010/The-UKAid-Transparency-Guarantee/
Publish What You Fund is the not-for-profit campaign for global aid transparency, found at:http://www.publishwhatyoufund.org
##END##
--
Federico Pirzio-Biroli
Advocacy and Communications Officer
Publish What You Fund
1 London Bridge
Downstream Building (3rd floor)
London, SE1 9BG
Tel: +44 20 7022 1909
Portable: +44 (0)7534 290 282
www.publishwhatyoufund.org
HOW TO ENSURE CLIMATE-CHANGE FINANCE REALLY IS "NEW AND ADDITIONAL"
Rich nations’ pledges mean nothing without baselines, say academics
Academics warn that the industrialized world’s promise of billions of “new and additional” dollars to help developing nations tackle climate change is meaningless without a baseline from which to count new funds.
In a briefing paper published by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), they outline two workable options for defining a baseline that would balance the demands of donor and recipient nations.
The paper will be formally launched on 5 June at a side event during the ongoing UN climate-change negotiations in Bonn.
The paper’s authors call for a UN-based system to define baselines and monitor pledges and payments. They say this must happen if developed nations are to regain the trust of developing nations that is essential for a global climate deal.
Last December the industrialized nations committed to provide developing nations with US$30 billion of “new and additional” funding between 2010 and 2012, as well as US$100 billion per year by 2020.
But developing nations fear that to meet this promise, the developed countries will simply rename existing aid budgets or count previous pledges of climate finance.
The paper was written by Saleemul Huq, senior fellow in IIED’s climate change group; Martin Stadelmann, researcher at the Center for International and Comparative Studies in Switzerland; and J. Timmons Roberts, director of the Center for Environmental Studies at Brown University, United States.
“Funding from developed countries to help developing countries tackle climate change has the potential to re-build the lost trust between the two sets of countries — but only if it is done properly,” says Saleemul Huq. “Agreeing on baselines for assessing ‘new and additional’ climate funds is key.”
Co-author J. Timmons Roberts says: “When is a promise not a promise? When there's no specified baseline that would allow anyone to know if the promise has been fulfilled. That's the case with the Copenhagen Accord's climate finance promise, which like many past aid promises could lead to billions of dollars being transferred with no trust-building accomplished."
Martin Stadelmann says: "Can you imagine the EU pledging to reduce its emissions by say 30% by 2020 without saying if this is 30% below the 1990 or 2005 levels? Yet this is what rich nations did with their funding pledges in Copenhagen when they made a pledge without a reference point and, therefore, without a clear meaning. For mutual accountability, we need an international rule that any pledge has to be accompanied by a baseline."
Download the paper from http://www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=17080IIED
Contacts for interviews
Saleemul Huq (Saleemul.huq@iied.org) +44 77 3186 0103
J. Timmons Roberts (timmons@brown.edu) +1 401-441-2103
Martin Stadelmann (martin.stadelmann@pw.uzh.ch) +41 77 437 97 81
For other enquiries, contact:
Mike Shanahan
Press officer
International Institute for Environment and Development
3 Endsleigh Street
London WC1H 0DD
Tel: 44 (0) 207 388 2117
Fax: 44 (0) 207 388 2826
Email: mike.shanahan@iied.org
www.iied.org
Follow me on Twitter
http://twitter.com/shanahanmike
EU aid own goals pushing MDGs out of reach
EU Member States are missing their official development aid targets and jeopardising global efforts to reach the Millennium Development Goals, reveals a new report published today by CONCORD, the European confederation of development NGOs.
The report, ‘Penalty against Poverty: More and Better EU aid can score Millennium Development Goals’, is being released as EU leaders are set to meet in Brussels next week to agree their common position for the United Nations’ MDG Summit in New York this September.
‘Penalty against Poverty’ finds that EU development aid in 2009 amounted to €49bn or 0.42% of national income – €1 billion less than 2008 levels. Official estimates for 2010 put total EU aid at 0.46% of national income, far short of the 0.56% target for 2010 agreed by member states back in 2005.
In real terms, this represents a shortfall of €11bn in funding with some of the EU’s biggest economies – Italy (€4.5bn), Germany (€2.6bn) and France (€800m) – amongst the worst offenders.
“EU aid efforts are being crippled by a crisis of commitment. In 2005 EU leaders committed to allocating 0.7% of their national income to fight global poverty but 5 years later they are well off-track on aid and abandoning their international commitments2 on aid effectiveness”, said Hussaini Abdu, Country Director of ActionAid Nigeria. “We are not asking them to get more ambitious about fighting poverty, just keep their existing promises on aid quality and quantity”, he said
The annual AidWatch report notes that although inflated aid figures continued to decline compared to 2008 levels, a staggering €3.8bn of inflated aid – or 8% of the total EU amount – was reported in 20093.
This includes €1.4bn for debt cancellation, €1.5bn in student costs and €0.9bn spent on refugees in donor countries – making real EU development aid only 0.38% of European GNI.
“EU aid is €19bn short of what was promised to developing countries by 2010 to help them meet the MDGs – more than half the estimated extra €32bn required per year globally to meet the hunger goal alone4”, said Justin Kilcullen, President of CONCORD. “This is very disappointing from a bloc that calls itself a leader on global development”, added Eduardo Sánchez, President of the Spanish NGO platform.
“Europe’s credibility as a global leader on development is at stake. If EU leaders are serious about regaining the trust of poor countries, they must come up with an ambitious MDG action plan next week”, said Elise Ford, head of Oxfam International’s EU office.
Representing over 1,600 European NGOs, CONCORD calls on EU governments to keep their promises to deliver more and better EU development aid. EU leaders must commit to legally-binding yearly timetables stating how aid targets will be met and find new ways to raise money for development such as a financial transaction tax which would bring estimated yearly revenue of €215bn - €1tr6 at no extra cost to the tax payer. Europe must put an end to the inflation of aid figures and place developing countries and their citizens at the centre of efforts to meet the MDGs.
Despite notable successes in getting children into primary education and reducing under-5 mortality from 12.6 million in 2000 to 9 million in 20075, world hunger is over one billion and rising, and the goal of halving extreme poverty will not be met until well after the 2015 MDGs deadline, leaving almost 30% of the world’s population in extreme poverty.
Malta Focus
“Aid transparency is one of the main challenges in Malta. Despite several requests from national NGDOs, the national platform (SKOP) and the Maltese AidWatch working group over the past years, and the commitments made by the government, a breakdown of aid figures has never been made available.”
However, “Over the past two years, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and SKOP have engaged in structured dialogue which has contributed to improvements in terms of collaboration and exchange of opinions.”
“Maltese NGDOs call on their government to:
• Improve transparency by providing a clear breakdown of ODA figures.
• Make a clear distinction between development funds and budget related to irregular immigration, and do not apply conditionality and implement the principle of untied development aid.
• Support the role of CSOs, especially in the South, by expanding consultation processes and increasing financial support, and by supporting the capacity building of Maltese NGDOs.
• Develop clear criteria and processes with regards to project selection, expenditure and evaluation.
• Devise a development strategy with poverty reduction goals as the main criterion for the allocation of aid and a specific focus on gender-related issues.
• Continue building up development structures and capacity in order to improve efficiency and transparency.”
For further information please do have a look at Malta Country Page (attached, p. 44).
------------- END ----------------
For more information and interviews, please contact:
Mario Gerada [Malta]: SKOP – Aid Watch Coordinator for SKOP: mariogerada@gmail.com –
Tel: 79 342 328
Brussels:
Chris Coxon, +32 488 878 381, Chris.Coxon@actionaid.org or
Alessandro Bozzini, +32 472 346 311, Alessandro.Bozzini@concordeurope.org
Notes to editor:
1 Source: European Commission staff working document on Financing for Development (Spring Package 2010)
2 The Paris Declaration, endorsed on 2 March 2005, is an international agreement signed by over 100 Governments and aid agencies in which they committed to increasing aid effectiveness through a set of monitored actions and indicators. The Accra Agenda for Action, agreed in 2008, built on the Paris Declaration and set out the areas where donors intended to focus their aid effectiveness efforts between 2008 and 2010.
3 AidWatch definition of inflated aid: Official aid figures include debt cancellation and student and refugee costs in donor countries. These are ODA reportable items which do not amount to a real transfer of resources to developing countries and are difficult to link to clear development results. Some countries, such as Luxembourg, the UK and Denmark do not report student and/or refugee costs as ODA.
4 The UN estimates that at a minimum, an additional €32.7bn per year is required globally to halve hunger
5 Schulmeister, S. (2009) A General Financial Transaction Tax: A Short Cut of the Pros, the Cons and a Proposal. WIFO, Wien
6 UN Millennium Development Goals Report 2009
CONCORD is the European confederation of relief and development NGOs. Its national associations and international networks represent over 1600 NGOs which are supported by millions of citizens across Europe.
The AidWatch network is an active group of civil society aid experts from CONCORD members across the 27 EU member states, working collectively to hold EU member states to account on their aid quality and quantity commitments.
SKOP - The National Platform of Maltese NGDOs is Malta's broadest network of voluntary and non-governmental organisations working in international development and humanitarian aid. SKOP is a member of CONCORD. (www.skopmalta.org).
*** PHOTO OPPORTUNITY: 17th June at 11am, Plaine du Chien Vert, Parc Cinquantenaire, Brussels. ‘More and better aid can score Millennium Development Goals’: during this stunt, members of CONCORD, wearing mask of European Prime Ministers and football t-shirts will try to score goals for Development. The Member States performing well will be blocked by the bad performers.
By this stunt, NGOs will call on EU leaders at the European Summit to take urgent action to get the EU’s MDG commitments back on track.
AidWatch is a campaign which was born out of the intention of European civil society organisations to keep the EU to account on the quality and quantity of its aid to developing countries.
This sees CONCORD and its members calling on EU Member States to keep their promise to give 0.7% of their Gross National Income (GNI) to developing countries by 2015 and 0.56% by 2010. The 12 countries that joined the EU after 2002 have committed to reach 0.17% in 2010 and 0.33% in 2015.
At the same time, the aid they provide should be genuine i.e. it should represent a real transfer of resources from Europe to the South. It should also be quality aid which works for the poor.
The main focus of the campaign is the annual AidWatch report, which features information on aid quality and quantity from all 27 member states and the European Commission.
This year, the official launch of the report will take place on 10th June.
The aims of AidWatch in 2010 are:
· To hold donors to account and ensure all EU member States will meet their 2010 aid quantity and quality commitments.
· To ensure that all EU member states put in place a year-on-year, binding national timetable to meet 0.7% of GNI as ODA by 2015.
· To reaffirm the need to meet aid commitments, both quality and quantity, in order to reach the MDGs (missing aid targets means missing the MDGs)
· To increase public awareness of EU aid commitments in each EU member states (on aid volumes and effectiveness) and increase public support for aid.
· To reaffirm the role of and need for aid in the face of the financial crisis impact on poor countries.
Title of the report:
“Penalty Against Poverty. More and better EU aid can score Millennium Development Goals”
Key messages:
· Topline message: More and better EU aid is needed to help reaching the MDGs
· Aid quantity: EU aid stagnated in 2009 and EU is off track on 2010 target. Aid decreased from €50bn in 2008 to €49bn in 2009. Despite the drop in absolute numbers, aid in % of GNI increased in 16 out of the 27 European countries, reaching an average 0.42% in 2009 (up from 0.40% in 2008). However, in most cases the advances are small and reflect the fact that EU economies contracted due to the economic crisis. In addition, according to official estimates, 2010 aid levels are expected to reach a maximum of 0.46%, far from the 0.56% collective target and over €11bn short in terms of funding. Most of these shortfalls will be consequence of insufficient funding by Italy (€4.5bn), Germany (€2.6bn) and France (€800m). We ask ministers to agree concrete measures to put the EU back on track towards 0.7%: ODA Peer Review process in the Council at Heads of State level and involving the European Parliament) + Annual Action Plans to guide aid increase. Even if ODA targets are met, however, developing countries will need greater support: a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) is an innovative mechanism that can potentially raise substantial revenue for development
· Inflation: EU members states still inflate their aid figures. Following the trend of the past 2 years, inflated aid figures continued their decline in 2009. In total, European countries reported €3.8bn of inflated aid as ODA, or almost 8% of the total figure: €1.4bn was debt cancellation, €1.5bn student costs and almost €1bn was spent on refugees in donor countries. Once inflated aid is discounted from the official ODA figures, aid levels drop to 0.38% of European GNI. If EU Member States continue the current trend and once inflated aid is discounted, EU countries will fall €19bn short of their promises in 2010 (much more than the €11bn shortfall official figures predict). There are new worrying trends: military spending being reported as ODA is a major problem particularly in new MS (30% of bilateral Polish aid goes to Afghanistan, similar figure for Hungary) and EU states have tried to widen the ODA agenda (“Whole of the union” / ODA+ approach). Climate finance. It must be made additional to existing ODA commitments. If new climate funds are to be counted as ODA, Europe will neither meet its ODA targets, nor face its past and present responsibility for climate change
· Aid effectiveness: for aid to work well, the key issue is ownership. Development assistance needs to be managed and directed by developing country institutions under close scrutiny from citizens. Although important progress has been made, EU donors often fail to provide sufficient support to women’s, poor and marginalised groups; they remain un-transparent; they continue to impose excessive conditions on their aid that weaken democratic accountability; and they pursue non-development objectives with aid. Moreover, EU MS have shown limited commitment to the Policy Coherence for Development agenda.
· MDGs: MDGs are off track, 2010 offers an opportunity for the EU to take the lead. Notable progress has been achieved in a number of goals, especially getting children into primary school reducing under-5 mortality from 12.6 million in 2000 to 9 million in 2007. However, progress has been slow in the majority of areas, especially maternal mortality and sanitation. In addition there is a disparity in performance across regions: in sub-Saharan Africa, at current rates of progress Goal 1A - halving extreme poverty - will not be achieved until after 2020; Goal 1B – halving hunger – will not be achieved until after 2050; and barely any progress has been made on Goal 5 – maternal health. The EU as a provider of more than 50% of global aid need to take the lead to put the world back on track towards reaching the MDGs: 2010 provides a huge opportunity with the UN MDG Review Summit in September.
· Financial crisis: still hitting poor countries, used as cheap excuse to cut budgets. The global economic crisis had an impact on Europe but this doesn’t justify such disappointing trends in EU aid. With sufficient political will from the EU – as shown by their financial sector bailouts of €1 trillion, equivalent all aid delivered since 1960, and by the aid increases in some countries – an emergency development response could have been mobilised. The second half of 2009 has seen the global economy move towards recovery, however the economic crisis is far from over for the world’s poorest people
· Role of aid: not enough to eradicate poverty but still crucial. Aid alone cannot eradicate poverty and solve development challenges, but it can make an important contribution. It is currently the most flexible source of financing for many poor countries as they deal with the impacts of the economic crisis; it has played an important role in getting 30 million extra children into school in sub-Saharan Africa since 2000; and coordinated aid to support sector strategies is delivering significant impacts in sectors such as health and agriculture.
1) Why is aid so important?
When aid is done well, it can make a considerable difference to the lives of the poor. When quality aid is given, it works, as the 2 million people now on free treatment for HIV/AIDS will attest. It can pay for millions of desperately needed teachers, nurses and medicines. It can help provide fertiliser and seeds to help countries crippled by food price increases. It is a lifeline for millions worldwide.
Aid works also well when it is given for the right reasons and when the aid recipients – real beneficiaries – people on the ground – have a role in saying what it should be spent on – only aid which is owned, works. Plus, aid is not only a moral obligation, it is about building a more peaceful, prosperous world for us all.
2) Why should the EU give aid when it is dealing with a crisis itself?
As the European Commission recently said, the interdependence of the global economy implies that what happens in other parts of the world impacts the EU. The EU has an interest in helping other countries to develop to increase markets fort its own goods and services abroad. It also has a responsibility to do all it can to make sure the aid it provides is as effective as possible in reducing poverty and ensuring rights for all. The EU has committed to playing a leadership role on aid. Collectively the EU is already providing more than half of global aid. But a lot still needs to be done to keep to the targets on aid and to make sure that aid is well delivered and actually making a difference.
3) What do you mean when you say aid is ‘inflated’?
European governments continue to artificially increase their aid figures by counting spending on debt relief, educating foreign students and refugees in Europe. In 2009 European countries reported €3.8bn of inflated aid as ODA, or almost 8% of all European ODA.
Take the case of refugee costs. According to the OECD, the costs of hosting refugees from developing countries, and all costs associated with eventual repatriation to a developing country, are reportable as ODA). Spending on refugees in donor countries is part of European governments’ human rights obligations to shelter and feed refugees upon arrival in their territories. However, this spending does not contribute to development in their countries of origin. It should not be counted as aid.
4) What do you mean when you say that aid is lacking transparency?
Access to relevant information on aid allocation and disbursement is necessary for real ownership by recipient governments. It is also crucial to enable citizens and parliamentarians in the North and the South to hold their governments accountable for the use of development aid. Unfortunately, many European donors rarely make sufficient information available in time for parliamentarians and civil society to be able to engage their governments. But even when information is made available, it is often found in formats which are extremely difficult for Southern citizens to access. This seriously constrains their ability to monitor their governments’ use of development aid.
5) What evidence is there that aid is really working?
Since the MDGs were agreed in 2000, 3 million more children survive every year; there are 41 million more children in school; and 2 million lives are saved every year by immunization. In Mozambique, where aid accounted for US$1.2 billion (€877 million) in 2007, almost half of the state’s budget, the number of Mozambicans living on less than one dollar a day has reduced from 70 percent to about 50 percent over the last ten years; 2 million more children go to school today; and child mortality has declined by 35 percentage points since 1990. European aid has been a major contributor to this progress.
6) Are the MDGs going to be met?
We still have a chance to meet the MDGs. The amounts of money that have been mobilised by governments in the last months to rescue their banking sectors show that mobilising resources is about political will. Europe can afford to meet its commitments on the aid which will take us towards the MDGs. Progress has been fragile but backing away from the MDGs now would mean losing the investment we have already made in working towards them, and letting the most vulnerable in our world fall back further into absolute poverty.
2010-specific questions
7) Why is 2010 so important when it comes to development aid?
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon announced 2010 as the year of development. It is the year of the MDG+10 review summit. It is also the deadline for EU aid quantity targets (0.56% collectively, 0.51% for EU 15 and 0.17% for EU 12). It is also the year when several aid quality commitments should be reached
8) Countries such as Ireland, Lithuania and Italy have recently reduced their development aid budgets. But does this not simply reflect the reality of budgetary restrictions in these countries? Can they really be expected to increase aid in recession years?
We do take into account the difficulties that European governments are experiencing. However whereas the crisis in Europe means that you or I may have to cut back on our spending or even lose our job, in developing countries it may be about losing your life. Economies are cyclical with booms and busts. Governments cannot reverse their promises each time there is such a bust, even if it is a severe one as is now the case. We are not asking for a new plan. We are asking our governments to stick to their existing promises: promises that mean the world of difference to people in poor countries. Moreover, countries such as the UK, Belgium, Sweden and Denmark are keeping their commitments even though they have been severely hit by the crisis, showing that reaching aid targets is mostly about political will.
9) Shouldn’t aid be kept for domestic use since the crisis has caused so much more poverty at home?
If anything, this crisis has shown us just how interdependent our lives are with people in developing worlds. An economic crisis in one far-off part of the world means redundancies and unemployment in another. Reducing vital aid volumes to poor people is not the answer. What European governments need to do is take seriously the challenge of addressing the problems in the financial and economic system. Meanwhile they need to continue providing the much needed assistance that is helping save lives every day in the developing world.
10) Why should aid money go through the EU when we could give it directly from the member states?
The European Commission provides targeted aid to countries across the developing world. Providing aid money through the European Commission is another way of getting out vital aid money. As long as it is owned by developing countries and targeted at poverty reduction, channeling aid through the European Commission is a good decision for EU member states.
11) Do people in poor countries actually want aid - doesn't it only make their lives worse by making governments corrupt and unaccountable?
Corruption is a problem in many developing countries. But reducing aid will only hit the most vulnerable, hardest. People in poor countries can only see improvements to their lives by choosing their own paths to development. Aid is a vital resource in allowing poor people to hold their own governments to account. There must of course be basic safety mechanisms in place to ensure that aid is not going to corrupt officials and is instead getting to the people for whom it is intended, but simply cutting aid is not the answer. Transparency and accountability must also start at home: many European governments are deeply untransparent about their aid. They need to set the example, improve their own transparency and move away from back-door aid negotiations. They also need to tackle the vast commercial corruption supported by the flawed economic system in the North – this also goes a long way to fostering the corruption we see in poor countries but is rarely given as much attention.
12) What do you mean by ‘ownership’ of aid: doesn’t it just mean giving power to ineffective governments? Surely it’s a good thing that donors make sure aid is spent effectively?
Ownership is broader than that. It is about giving choice to the people who actually receive the aid, and investing resources in the governments that receive aid so that they have the capacity to deliver it to their citizens effectively. It’s also about supporting citizens in poor countries to hold their own governments to account and ensure the aid is spent effectively.
13) Are you saying that aid should be given with no strings attached?
Not entirely. Financial, fiduciary, contractual agreements to ensure aid is spent for intended purposes – decided upon by the countries themselves – are good. What we don’t want to see are outdated, inappropriate policy models imposed on countries by donors who have their own political agendas.
14) European donor governments are already breaking their aid promises; isn't this really all missing the point that there is no way of making them deliver?
No. (As above): the amounts of money that have been mobilised by governments in recent months to rescue their banking sectors show that mobilising resources is about political will. Europe can afford to meet its commitments on the aid and has a responsibility to do so. Citizens in Europe can go a long way to convincing their governments that this is the case.
To get more information on AidWatch, you can contact:
ð Alessandro Bozzini, AidWatch Coordinator: abozzini@CONCORDeurope.org Tel: +32 (0)2 743 87 64
.jpg)
Broken EU aid promises push Millennium Development Goals out of reach,
says CONCORD as OECD announces aid figures
Figures released today by the OECD show a reduction1 in EU overseas development aid in 2009. At current levels the European Union will not meet commitments to provide 0.7% of GNI in aid by 2015 to reach the Millennium Development Goals. The news represents yet another broken promise by EU governments and delivers a further blow to the MDGs, which will be reviewed in New York this September.
Germany and Italy, two major European economies, cut aid to 0.35% and 0.16% of GNI respectively, taking a big chunk out of the total EU aid budget. Several other EU countries, including Austria, Ireland and Portugal also reduced their aid expenditure in 2009, with all DAC EU countries’ contributions2 falling by a total of 0.2%.
The UK and Belgian governments have demonstrated leadership by increasing aid in line with their promises, whilst many countries continue to blame the financial crisis for their cuts. This suggests a lack of political will, not resources. Despite feeling the effects of the financial crisis, the UK and Belgium increased aid expenditure to 0.52% and 0.55% of GNI respectively. Among the top performers are Denmark and Sweden, who spent 0.88% and 1.12% of GNI respectively.
“We’ve spent billions bailing out the banks but where’s the bail out for the world’s poor? By not paying up, EU countries are delivering a fatal blow to the MDGs”, said Luca De Fraia, Deputy Secretary General of ActionAid Italy.
With EU leaders meeting on 17-18th June in Brussels to agree the EU’s position for September’s MDG review summit, the EU and its member states needs to make good on its obligations to fight for the eradication of extreme poverty.
“EU Member States must deliver on their aid promises, the lives of the most vulnerable people in the world depend on it”, said Heinz Hödl, Vice-President of CIDSE. “In order to get back on track on the MDGs it is imperative EU member states demonstrate how they plan to meet the 0.7% target by 2015 and hold themselves to account”.
CONCORD calls on EU Member States to publish legally-binding timetables showing how they will meet their aid commitments, submitting them to the European Commission during 2010. An annual review of aid targets should take place at Council level with a discussion of its results in the European Parliament.
“Poverty and hunger are rising worldwide with up to 90 million more people now living in extreme poverty than before the crisis. One billion people – a sixth of the world's population – go to bed hungry every night. Leaders must keep their promises to increase aid to the world's poorest people”, said Justin Kilcullen, President of CONCORD.
---- ENDS-----
For more information and interviews, please contact:
· Alessandro Bozzini: abozzini@concordeurope.org or +32 472 346 311
· Chris Coxon: Chris.Coxon@actionaid.org or +32 488 878 381
· Roeland Scholtalbers: Scholtalbers@cidse.org or +32 477 068 384
Notes to Editors:
1 From US$70,974 million (2008) to US$67,135 million (2009); this, however, represents an increase of 0.01% in EU aid as a proportion of EU GNI, which shrunk in 2009 as a result of the financial crisis.
2 The 15 countries of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD (DAC) are: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom.
CONCORD is the European confederation of Relief and Development NGOs. Its 24 national associations and 18 international networks represent over 1,600 NGOs which are supported by millions of citizens across Europe: www.concordeurope.org
CONCORD will launch its 2010 AidWatch Report on June 10th, which provides detailed analysis of how the EU and its member states are performing on development aid. Click here to read the Aid Watch report 2009 and the AidWatch position paper on European Union aid in 2010. Testimonies from developing countries. Pictures from developing countries.
'AidWatch Update Briefing: EU Aid in Jeopardy?
In the face of the ongoing global upheaval caused by the financial, economic, food and energy crises which have unfolded over recent years, it is more important than ever that the European Union keeps its promises on aid to developing countries which are suffering the worst effects of a crisis they did not create. However, according to the latest information collected by CONCORD’s “AidWatch” initiative, summarised in the briefing “EU Aid in Jeopardy?”, the EU is off-track towards its promised aid targets and many Member States are faltering on their aid commitments. '
Dear AidWatchers,
The Danish EU-NGO Platform has launched the first Citizen’s Initiative under the Lisbon Treaty: Keep Your Promises to the Poor! The aim is to collect 1 million signatures raising awareness about the fact that European leaders do not deliver on the aid promises they have given. The initiative will be used to make a breakthrough in the global fight against poverty and is supported by AidWatch.
Via this link you and other citizens from the EU’s 27 member states will give the world’s poor a voice:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/promises/
We hope that you will sign the petition and forward this mail to everyone in your network.
Keep Your Promises to the Poor! also has a facebook profile: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Keep-Your-Promises-to-the-Poor/201229962981#/pages/Keep-Your-Promises-to-the-Poor/201229962981