This year, CONCORD’s flagship report, AidWatch, turned 20 years old. To mark the occasion, we wrote a very special, bumper edition. We also held a well-attended launch event, inviting representatives of the European Commission, Member States and civil society to give their views. Since AidWatch is dedicated to analysing the quantity and quality of EU Official Development Assistance (ODA), most of our discussion was focused on that, but inevitably we broached the topic of the EU’s Global Gateway initiative. And obviously, being CONCORD, we flagged where we feel there is room for improvement in how the EU uses and reports its ODA.
Now, some might (and did) argue that we’ve been saying the same thing for years. It’s true, from some perspectives. This year’s report, “Ending short-sightedness, restoring Official Development Assistance’s purpose”, does draw attention to the persistent, decades-long mismatch between the commitments and the spending practices of EU Institutions and EU Member States. The report also exposes how the EU and Member States are undermining ODA’s effectiveness by continuing to blur the definition of ODA and by hijacking its core purpose.
What’s different this year, however, is the fact that we explore the place of the private sector in EU ODA more closely. This is important in light of the Global Gateway initiative which moves the EU’s focus away from human development back to more traditional, public-private partnership infrastructure projects (albeit, these days also addressing the clean energy and digital transformations).
The AidWatch panel discussion especially highlighted that, in the context of the Global Gateway, ODA is increasingly used as a tool for strategic influence and competitiveness, rather than for human progress and poverty reduction. So it’s almost more like funding the external angle of the EU’s industrial policy than international cooperation – not that our panelists put it that way. The aim of AidWatch is therefore to emphasise that the EU could – and should – restructure its current approach to ODA, to preserve ODA for its true purpose: advancing progress in partner countries by strengthening people’s “human capital” and supporting local economies. Speakers reflected on the challenges and opportunities to re-centre ODA’s true purpose.
What seems to be overlooked these days is that over the past two decades, ODA has contributed to improving global health, reducing poverty, strengthening education systems, and supporting climate resilience and governance reforms in partner countries. That in turn contributes to a more stable and prosperous world for us all. But now, cuts in ODA by EU Member States risk undermining much of the progress achieved so far. This is exacerbated by the continuous reporting of financial flows as ODA that don’t even reach countries in the Majority World or that aren’t aligned with their needs, or where they could have the greatest impact.
And it certainly won’t be helped by the fact that it is the donor governments which continue to set and interpret the rules that determine what counts as ODA. And which define how their own performance is assessed. The panelists agreed that ODA is not charity, so surely there should be sanctions for missing the agreed 0.7% target? It’s a commitment… and a question of justice.
Twenty years of AidWatch have shown that it is essential to reclaim ODA’s purpose, give partner countries an equal voice in how aid is delivered, and to ensure that aid supports those who most need it. AidWatch will continue to shine a light on EU practices and stay true to its role in keeping ODA aligned with its original mission.