I have a sense of “déjà vu”: something about today’s situation feels as though we’ve been here before, not so long ago. The economic and financial fallout of the 2008-9 crisis left bitter memories of destroyed lives and livelihoods, and many worry we are now headed in a similar direction. But as governments prepare their economic recovery plans, they not only face a formidable challenge, but also an unprecedented opportunity. 

In my last blog, I asked the question: “what would Europe do to support Africa and show partnership and solidarity, if the coronavirus spreads there as it has in Europe?” Well, quite coincidentally, the EU reacted just a few days later, releasing the Joint EC-EEAS Communication setting out “Team Europe’s” global response to COVID-19.

While the EU plays due lip service to its core values, such as the rule of law, human rights and gender equality, its global response is (also) guided by the fact that it is deemed to be in the EU’s “strategic interests” to support partner countries. These two approaches may not be mutually exclusive but an emphasis on ‘interests’ when set apart from the EU’s core values clearly shows that other interests are at stake here. However, solidarity should be shown for solidarity’s sake. Especially since the EU is keen to be making up for its earlier lack of solidarity with other European nations.

This “war against COVID-19” (to use French President Macron’s bellicose term)  is not about winning visibility, kudos and brownie points. It’s about saving lives, strengthening our public health systems and beating a dangerous virus. As the WHO Director-General, Dr. Tedros, so rightly said back in 2017, “global health security is only as strong as its weakest link.” That means “no one is safe until we are all safe.”

So if the EU is serious when it says that “now is the time for international solidarity and leadership”, then the EU should target its support where it is needed most – that is, prioritising least developed countries, those countries most at risk and those least able to cope should the virus take hold. Clearly, the aim should be to ensure that the most marginalised people and countries are not left even further behind, given the strong likelihood that the pandemic will deepen already existing inequalities around the world.

And yet, no new EU funding has been made available to respond to the pandemic. The EU has put together a response package of €15.6 billion (€20bn if one includes Member State contributions) from within the existing EU budget. While this may seem a significant amount, the need in partner countries, especially less developed countries, is tremendous. Even if this package can be justified for the here and now, as soon as we enter the short- and medium-term, this will surely not suffice. And it certainly doesn’t come close to what a number of experts are suggesting might be needed. What’s more, of the €15.6 billion, only around €3.3 billion will be dedicated to interventions specifically addressing health challenges in partner countries and only €3.5 billion has been set aside for Sub-Saharan Africa, by comparison with €5.4 billion for the EU’s neighbourhood. So the allocations are not based on need. And they are definitely not based on consultation with partner countries (or local civil society).

Is this the kind of leadership the EU was hoping to showcase?

While difficult decisions do need to be made, extraordinary times need extraordinary solutions. Does the EU need to review its rules so that it can act in a truly appropriate manner when a crisis hits?

Looking further ahead in 2020, the urgency to finalise the negotiations of the EU’s seven-year budget is increasing, because there are now no ‘spare funds’ to tide the EU over from one budget period to the next should the negotiations stall or fail. Questions are being asked as to whether the EU will consider a special ‘corona recovery period’ – or a corona top-up fund. This could be an interim budget focused on getting us back on track, helping  small and medium enterprises get back on their feet, people to regain their livelihoods and public services to recover. Or simply extra money dedicated to that. While it is clear that we do need an injection of money, of one sort or another, the terms and conditions of such an injection must be carefully thought through so that there are no negative repercussions for people further down the line. 

Most particularly,  I wouldn’t want to see a lot of short-term measures be put in place if it means we plaster over the cracks in the system, only to go back to business as usual in a year’s time. To paraphrase Chilean protesters, we mustn’t go back to ‘normal’, because ‘normal’ was the problem. European leaders need to seize this opportunity to consider all aspects of our economic and financial systems. 

I would like the EU to re-analyse where its priorities lie and put adequate funds behind them over the medium and longer term. To completely rethink its budget – both the internal budget and its external assistance to partner countries. To design a gender-sensitive budget. EU money must be invested in protecting and strengthening public systems – in Europe and elsewhere – and in making sure that everyone has access to quality education, healthcare and social protection. It must be used to protect workers and consumers, wherever they are. And most particularly, it must result in far greater equality between people and countries. This may, indeed, require a significantly increased budget (or Multiannual Financial Framework). But we are only as strong as our weakest link…

Whatever happens, we can’t repeat what we did in 2008. This time around, we need to save lives and livelihoods. This time, we need thought leadership and courage to question our ways of working. This time, we need a just and sustainable economic recovery which benefits people and planet. We need to follow a path of sustainable development.

Tanya Cox,
CONCORD Director

The Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) determines the architecture of the EU’s budget. As the current MFF is coming to an end in 2020, this episode of our “Talking Development Podcast” reveals the important elements that should be put into consideration for the new MFF which will last for seven years (2021-2027). Stay tuned as we explain why you should care about the new EU budget and what is at stake for European NGOs.

Tune in and listen to the 5 complementary inputs of our speakers and find out everything you should know about the Multiannual Financial Framework.

THE SHORT VIDEOS

What needs to be done in the next EU budget

THE FULL AUDIO

Aid is not only about quantity, it is about quality too! It needs to reach the people who need it the most. Our new paper who owns Development Effectiveness? A European Reality Check analyses how EU aid is actually used based on the outcome of the last monitoring round of the Global Partnership for Development Effectiveness (GPEDC). This paper puts forward a series of recommendations based on a set of some selected indicators.

Aid effectiveness in 3 figures:

By looking at 4 indicators, this paper analyses how EU aid is actually performing:

• Does aid focus on results?
• Does aid promote country ownership?
• Does aid promote inclusiveness?
• And finally, is aid transparent and accountable?

Read the report now: 

How will the EU commit to financing development? 2019 has seen progress towards a sustainable, human rights-based approach to spending our money where it is most needed. Now it’s time to recap.

The importance of the European Union’s long-term budgeting is only overshadowed by its complexity. Before going into details, let us quickly remind ourselves what exactly we are talking about here: the EU determines its budget spending for at least five years, referring to this long-term budget as the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). The current MFF period of 2014-2020 is coming to an end – which is why they are busy negotiating the next MFF, determining the EU’s budget for seven years from 2021 to 2027.

As the European NGO Confederation for relief and development, CONCORD is concerned with the budget for external relations (Heading 6) and especially, its external instrument called – attention, another acronym ahead! – “Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument” (otherwise, helpfully abbreviated to NDICI!) In the first proposal laid out by the European Commission in 2018, the NDICI makes up 6% of the total EU budget, meaning € 89 billion. This proposal was met with skepticism by CONCORD: we feared that the heading risks prioritising the EU’s self-interests in its foreign policy over poverty reduction and sustainable development.

The Parliament’s Path to Financing for Sustainable Development

Now, in early 2019, it was time for the European Parliament to arrive at its position on the NDICI. During January and February 2019, co-rapporteurs laid out amendments to significantly improve the NDICI. These amendments were put to a vote in the Foreign Affairs and Development Cooperation committees in the European Parliament on March 4 2019. Prior to the vote, CONCORD voiced its concerns and ideas.

The joint-committee vote endorsed these amendments, with CONCORD welcoming the decision as a “win for sustainable development” and a “step in the right direction.”

But, of course – we were not there yet. As the Foreign Affairs and Development Cooperation committees agreed on this improved version of the NDICI, it still needed to be approved by the European Parliament in plenary. This decisive approval was voted on March 27 2019, with Parliament passing all proposed amendments. In its first reaction, CONCORD saw the decision as a “commitment to the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, human rights, and gender equality.”

CONCORD’s Voices

So what are the significant improvements in the Parliament’s version of the next external instrument? First, the NDICI’s budget should be increased by € 4 billion from the Commission’s plan of €89 billion. Within this budget, we see a significant rise in climate and environment spending, a stronger focus on human rights and development, 85% gender mainstreamed programmes and supportive language of sexual and reproductive health and rights throughout the text.

But let’s have our experts on migration, climate and the role of the private sector in sustainable development break down the details for you!

What’s next?

We are not at the end of the road yet! In fact, we’re only half-way. As Parliament has confirmed its stand on the NDICI, it is now up to the Council to formalise its position in order to  enter into trialogue negotiations between Commission, Parliament and Council in the autumn. These trialogues will determine the final version of the instrument. CONCORD’s Director Tanya Cox:

The Cotonou Partnership Agreement, i.e. the main agreement between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries (ACP) countries, is coming to an end in 2020. The negotiations have started and in order to ensure a fair ground leading to a “partnership of equals”, CONCORD has developed a list of recommendations. This would serve as a contribution from Civil Society to the ongoing EU-ACP negotiations and ensure mutually beneficial priorities.

Where do we stand?

Recently, both the EU and the ACP published their respective negotiating directives by June. The negotiations for a post-Cotonou partnership agreement were launched in September and will continue for the coming months.

CONCORD is following this process, examining and evaluating the two mandates, since this partnership agreement is a great opportunity to demonstrate the commitments of the EU towards international frameworks such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction or the New Urban Agenda.

In this context, civil society’s role is more important than ever. On one side, we worked on concrete provisions for Civil Society space and engagement in the future agreement. On the other, we tackled the “6 Strategic Priorities” that the EU’s mandate contains. On that basis, CONCORD developed a list of 6 recommendations in which you can go through below.

CONCORD Recommendations for the 6 Strategic Priorities

1. Human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy, rule of law and good governance

• Include binding political elements and concrete references to accountability mechanisms
• Commitments to meaningful participation of the Civil Society at all levels
• Promote the principles of policy coherence for sustainable development and the implementation of the Agenda 2030
• Mainstream gender equality as a cross-cutting issue and non-discrimination

2. Human development and dignity

• Ensure an integrated and holistic approach to sustainable development by mainstreaming the 3 dimensions of sustainability (economic, social and environmental) and the leave no one behind principle
• Deliver on the ODA target
• Avoid the diversion of funds to emerging political priorities as well as concentration of funds to countries and regions based on EU’s security and migration policies
• Address Family Planning and Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, and include the UN agreed language on both issues
• Provide an equitable access to social services
• Foster youth empowerment

3. Inclusive sustainable economic development

• Do not impose trade and investment commitments nor make trade and investment negotiations compulsory
• Promote a more sustainable, resilient agriculture, less vulnerable to climate change

• Ensure that priority is given to private investments and activities that provide development and financial added-value and that have a high impact on sustainable development, poverty reduction, gender equality and socio-economic rights of populations, including through decent work. They must provide the highest guarantees of sustainability and long-term impact

• Safeguards must be in place to ensure that the leveraging of private finance and the use of blended finance do not undermine the debt sustainability of the ACP countries

4. Environmental sustainability, climate change and sustainable management of natural resources

• Reflect on, capitalise and integrate global action plans, like the Paris Agreement, to bring them further
• Support strong commitments to: biodiversity protection and ecosystem restoration; climate mitigation and adaptation; resilience building; good governance and sustainable use and management of natural resources; fighting environmental crime and wildlife trafficking; fighting pollution; promoting investments in renewable energy sources; promoting sustainable consumption and production practices
• Climate and environmental considerations should be mainstreamed across the framework

5. Peace, security and justice

• Focus on human security rather than state security. Also, human security should be translated into safety from chronic threats, as well as into protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in people’s daily lives
• Systematically conduct conflict analysis integrating CSOs input to reach peace, security and justice
• Actively support the diverse contributions of civil society organisations – including women’s organisations and local communities – to peace-building and conflict prevention

6. Migration and Development

• Reinforce the protection of refugees and other displaced persons and maximise the benefits that migration and mobility can bring to the EU and ACP countries
• The EU should pay attention to the policies and challenges of its partner countries
• EU aid and trade cooperation with ACP countries should not be used to leverage their cooperation in the area of migration and the EU and its Member States must refrain from applying conditionality on development aid for ACP countries

Looking for more information? Read the recommendations below and get more insights on the negotiations process via the Cotonou timeline.