Email this page to a friend!

Notice (8): Undefined index:  url [APP/views/blogs/index.ctp, line 43]

EU Aid Must Not Be A Casualty of Budget War
 

This week saw an interesting and lively debate in the House of Lords on recent developments in the European Union. While Members’ contributions were varied and focused on a range EU issues, I chose to highlight the impact of the Union as a driving force for poverty reduction and peace in some of the world’s most vulnerable countries.

All too often, debates on the EU have centred on the actual material or parochial political benefits of being at the tables of the European Council. Yet such a narrow understanding of the spirit of the Union risks missing the crux of the debate completely. Simply put, the EU question boils down to whether we want to live in isolation as the United Kingdom, or whether we want to live as part of a group of nations that work together - not only in their internal interests but externally too.

Of course, the EU is far from perfect. From an excessive bureaucracy, through the imperfect Lisbon Treaty, to the current Euro crisis, it is clear that there exists a dire need for reform within the EU. But the Union also has its benefits. The single market has propelled trade and has been balanced by many social benefits; the EU has had a global impact on the environment, trade and development; and the EU has played a pivotal role in advancing peace across the continent in the aftermath of World War II and through enlargement to the East. The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the EU earlier this year was a much-needed reminder of just how far we have come. In the areas of Justice and Home Affairs, and the Economy, as well as in the area of External Relations, there is a strong case for pooled sovereignty in today’s world. And that sometimes has to be backed up by laws passed at the European level. The UK Government and others should show more leadership in making that case to the people of Britain, not shy away from it.

The current battle over the EU Budget risks consequences for the Official Development Assistance of EU states. But, whoever is responsible for the current financial crisis and EU overspends, it is not those who live in the poorest parts of Africa, Latin America or Asia, and who currently benefit from the EU aid budget. The UK has made a proposal to freeze the budget, and I sympathise with that view. But if cuts are made proportionately across all budgets, there will of course be an impact on the aid expenditure as well. The President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy recently made an outrageous proposal, suggesting that cuts to the EU aid budget should be disproportionately high in comparison with cuts to other departments, in order to avoid cuts to the subsidies and the waste that goes on in the departments for which he and President Barroso are responsible.

Not only is this morally wrong, it is also illogical. In the UK, every penny that we take out of the EU aid budget will simply have to be re-routed to our own DfID budget. We have committed to the 0.7% international target irrespective of what agencies, departments and organisations such funds are channelled through. Other countries will have to follow suit and do the same thing with their national budgets since the EU spend contributes to national aid and development assistance targets. The only countries to benefit will be those that want to avoid international obligations. And poor people will pay with their lives.

A review of UK aid signals that engaging with the EU on development matters works. DfID and the former Secretary of State, Mr Mitchell, undertook a Multilateral Aid Review in 2011 which, in an objective evaluation that saw funding withdrawn from a number of multilateral organisations, showed that the European Development Fund’s performance was strong in meeting the UK’s aid objectives. In having organisational strengths to use that money effectively, the Fund was considered to be strong, and it was more likely than most to change and reform. It would be a terrible signal if in a year when the G8 comes back to the UK we were leading on a budget initiative that slashes the EU aid budget, depriving the world’s poorest of essential humanitarian assistance and the development investment that helps create growth.

I urge our Government to take a strong stand. Political leadership is not only about tactics. It is not only about trying to get the better of the other parties in relation to a referendum. It must also be about vision: setting out a case for our role in the world and in Europe, working out how the two go together, and understanding how we can then make the best use of them. Now is the time for the Government and the Opposition to be bucking the popular trend of euroscepticism, and leading Britain to a new level of engagement fit for the 21st century.

This is a guest blog, originally published here. The author, Lord McConnell, was the youngest and longest serving First Minister of Scotland. He is now a Labour life peer.
*Image credit: European Council
Posted by Lord McConnell in Poverty, Corruption & Governance for column Issue Analysis on Dec 21st 2012, 02:47
Comments: 10 | Post a Comment

Post-2015 Debate Must Include Front Line Voices
 

This week, as the world watched with baited breath the violent clashes in Gaza, Goma and Syria, the harrowing images and stories broadcast on our television screens offer a cold reminder of the human cost of conflict.

There is little dispute that conflict, development and peacebuilding are intrinsically linked. Yet the current development framework in the form of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) largely ignored this connection. And, as the 2015 deadline for the achievement for these global targets looms, the facts speak for themselves:

  • No low-income fragile or conflict-affected country has yet achieved a single MDG;
  • Of the 46 countries at the bottom of the UNDP’s human development index, 32 are conflict-affected or fragile;
  • 60% of the undernourished, 61% of the impoverished, 77% of the children not in primary school, 65% of the people lacking access to clean water and 70% of infant deaths occur in fragile or conflict-afflicted states.

As we entered the new millennium, the dark shadow cast by a decade of atrocities and civil war was long. The fact that the Millennium Declaration and its subsequent goals gained the signatory approval of 189 countries was, by all accounts, a triumph. And relentless pursuit of their achievement by 2015 in as many countries as possible is still essential.


Photo: Andreas H Lunde

But they offered a ‘top-down’ approach to development that emphasised basic service provision. They were right for their time, but the time is now right for a new approach.

The MDGs encouraged schools for girls, but they have not attacked the sexual violence and rape used as weapons of war. They have delivered vaccines for children, but have not stopped their recruitment as child soldiers. They have improved access to clean water, but have not halted the flow of blood.

When we look beyond 2015 and to the future, we have to decide what worked well with the existing framework, together with what did not, and incorporate these lessons learned into a new and improved approach. But this time, the ‘we’ has to include, and indeed be led by, the voices of the developing world.

Looking at the evidence, it is clear that the MDGs have failed in fragile and conflict-affected states, and those states are failing the 1.5 billion people who live within their borders. The Goals have not sufficiently tackled the structural causes and drivers of conflict, choosing instead to treat the symptoms. Sticky plasters don’t heal wounds; they merely cover up the more fundamental problem.

Of course, developing and winning support for a new model is tough. Can global goals ever be made relevant to local contexts? Should national governments be responsible for setting measurable benchmarks? Can the need for a comprehensive framework work alongside the importance of clarity and simplicity? What financing mechanisms would be suitable for states with high levels of corruption? Can one framework truly capture the various issues that are to be addressed? Would it be better to forgo quantifiable targets all together?

These are difficult questions that will no doubt lead to difficult conversations, but they are ones that need to be discussed, negotiated and, ultimately, answered.

What is surely not a matter for debate, however, is the inclusion of the voices and needs of people in developing fragile or conflict-affected states in any emerging plan. Negotiations on the post-2015 framework must bring all stakeholders to the table if they are to be truly inclusive. They must also address the inequalities – real or perceived – that are often at the heart of conflict and fragility.

Developments, such as The New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, the joint statement by civil society on ‘Bringing peace back into the post-2015 development framework’, and recent comments made by David Cameron in his capacity as Chair of the High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, are promising in this regard. But momentum and leadership are now paramount.

UK aid expenditure for 2012/13 in Palestine and the Democratic Republic of the Congo amounts to around £86 million and £165 million respectively. Recent events only go to show that, regardless of how much money you throw at a problem, conflict can very quickly escalate and reclaim any ground made in development. This is why the causes and drivers of conflict need to be addressed as a priority for the post-2015 plan, and the UK is in a unique position to ensure this becomes a reality.

This blog was originally posted here.


--
Lord McConnell was the youngest and longest serving First Minister of Scotland – from 2001 to 2007 – and he was appointed to the House of Lords on 28 June 2010. Lord McConnell was the Prime Minister’s Special Representative for Peacebuilding from 2008 to 2010, and Education Adviser to the Clinton Hunter Development Initiative in Malawi and Rwanda.
Posted by Lord McConnell in Corruption & Governance for column Issue Analysis on Nov 23rd 2012, 02:40
Comments: 7 | Post a Comment

Put Peacebuilding at the Heart of Post-2015 Talks
 

This blog was originally posted by Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale here, in advance of the debate on the UK government'??s Building Stability Overseas Strategy he tabled on Tuesday 30 October 2012 in the House of Lords.

As the nature of conflict has changed in the post-Cold War era, so too has the UK government’s policy discourse on development aid. Since DfID’s first White Paper in 1997, Eliminating World Poverty: a challenge for the 21st Century, we have witnessed a growing recognition that development and security are intrinsically linked. Over the last decade the UK has placed great emphasis on stabilising fragile and conflict-affected states, and the Coalition Government took Labour's work on this a step further in 2011 with their Building Stability Overseas Strategy (BSOS), an integrated approach to defence, development and diplomacy to ensure a durable and positive peace in fragile states.

Some may use the increased assistance offered to countries like Yemen as a rallying cry to denounce the ‘securitisation of aid’, but the facts suggest that this strategic shift is necessary – both morally and logically.

Over 1.5 billion people currently live in fragile and conflict-affected states and it’s no coincidence that not one of these has yet achieved a single Millennium Development Goal. People in fragile or conflict-affected states are more than twice as likely to be undernourished as those in other developing countries, more than three times as likely to be unable to send their children to school, twice as likely to see their children die before age five, and more than twice as likely to lack clean water. This is simply unacceptable.

Inequality and poverty are principal drivers of conflict - those who lack opportunity and a stake in their future are far more likely to turn to violence. Tackling these issues ‘upstream’ can go a long way to preventing future conflict. With the cost of insecurity generated by conflict totalling a global annual burden of $400 billion, being proactive makes fiscal sense. In terms of trade and investment, the incentives are also clear. The average cost of civil war is equivalent to more than 30 years of GDP growth for a medium-size developing country, and trade levels after major episodes of violence can take 20 years to recover.

The UK has championed the search for solutions internationally - from the key role of women in peacebuilding, to the need for greater urgency and coordination in post-conflict reconstruction. We have been consistent under both Labour and this Coalition government. With the publication of BSOS and the World Development Report on Conflict, Security and Development in 2011 we now have a road map, both nationally and internationally, to transform interventions and change millions of lives. Tonight, I will be asking the government about the progress they have made since the publication of BSOS. Is the Early Action Funding Facility working? Have they established the independent assessment of their conflict prevention work? How are they taking forward building capacity in regional institutions, like the African Union, and the 'prevention partnerships' with the emerging powers, like Brazil? Has the new internal Watchlist of fragile countries made a difference?

But this week is also a chance to influence policy in the next decade and beyond. The Prime Minister will co-chair and host the UN High-Level Panel established to report on the development framework required after the deadline for the Millennium Development Goals in 2015. Peacebuilding is the most important development challenge of our age, so his is a fantastic opportunity for the UK to put issues of conflict and development centre stage.

The MDGs were a product of their time. They focused on basic services and needs. But the world has moved on and today the poorest and most vulnerable people live in countries affected by violent conflict. I want us to use our leadership role in the High-Level Panel to insist that the new development framework reflects the importance of personal security and freedom from violence. New goals should specifically reference justice and the institutions that guarantee it. They should also provide for employment to underpin the social development that is the best method of conflict prevention. This week the Prime Minister must say clearly that we want to see these advances discussed, debated and agreed, and that we will use our unique position in the UN Security Council, the European Union, the World Bank and the Commonwealth to make this happen.

For the millions who suffer from conflict around the world, this is a matter of life and death. We should put them first.
Posted by Lord McConnell in Corruption & Governance for column Issue Analysis on Oct 31st 2012, 07:19
Comments: 13 | Post a Comment

How Can we Halt the Growing Sudanese Conflict?
 

Guest blog by Lord McConnell, former First Minister of Scotland appointed to the House of Lords in June of 2010. He was also the Prime Minister’s Special Representative for Peacebuilding from 2008-2010. 

This month, South Sudan celebrates its first birthday. While this should be cause for elation, we must pause to recognize that the world’s youngest nation may perhaps also be the most vulnerable.

The peaceful secession of South Sudan last July was a remarkable outcome after decades of conflict and dispute. The agreement to a referendum, execution of that vote and implementation of the result could yet become an example of real democratic progress. But the conflict between North and South has not come to an end. Since the referendum, the two states have been locked in disputes concerning borders, territory and oil revenues.

At the centre of these issues is ownership of the Abyei region, which was one of the most contentious points in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) negotiations. Abyei is an oil-rich region that falls along the border between the North and the South. Although it was a stronghold for rebel forces during the civil war, Sudan refused to define Abyei as part of the South during peace talks.

In order to secure an agreement, Abyei was awarded “special administrative status,” and the issue was left unresolved. Since then, a referendum has been postponed indefinitely, opening the door to competing claims and military actions.

Sudanese forces took control of the area in 2011, displacing and endangering tens of thousands of people. Numerous military clashes have occurred along the border since, including South Sudan’s invasion of Heglig in April, which escalated tensions to the brink of war.

It was only after the United Nations threatened to impose sanctions that Sudan and South Sudan entered into negotiations in Addis Ababa, their first direct high-level talks since the referendum.

The negotiations, which are being mediated by the African Union, will aim to draw up a safe demilitarized zone along the border. This should be seen as a prerequisite for progress in other areas – as Abyei is the first of many obstacles to sustainable peace in the region. These disputes are causing hardship on a terrible scale.

In April, the UK’s own Department for International Development reported that a humanitarian crisis loomed in South Sudan, as refugee influxes and heavy rains have created severe food shortages around the disputed border region. Last week, the Associate Parliamentary Group on Sudan heard from Government Minister Stephen O’Brien MP following his recent visit. It was not a positive report. Tensions remain, people are suffering and the international agencies seem slow to act.

Among alarming recent developments, human rights groups have been warning that the forced relocation of South Sudanese by Sudan is resulting in overflowing refugee camps. Meanwhile, reports suggest that fighting between Khartoum and rebel forces in the Nuba Mountains has created a separate humanitarian crisis, as hundreds of thousands of civilians are trapped in conflict zones, with no access to food.

All our international experience tells us that the combination of ongoing territorial dispute and a growing humanitarian crisis leads straight back to violent conflict. I am fully aware that global diplomacy and international political debates are currently focused on Syria and the Eurozone, but it would be tragic if this great step forward in Sudan and South Sudan in 2011 was to be followed by failure in 2012.

International pressure is often the key to brokering negotiations between parties with deep-seated animosities, and the lead is rightly with the AU. But the United Kingdom can and should use its position of leadership on development to support these efforts and push hard for solutions, including a referendum in Abyei, and a commitment by both sides to respect the outcome.

In the context of the looming humanitarian crises, it is even more imperative that the UK and others sustain their financial commitment to international development, which is essential for both state-building and emergency response.

The long-term effects of civil war are not easily forgotten or remedied. From 1983 to 2005, an estimated two million people died in Sudan’s internal conflict. From these ashes, a new state has arisen – one that requires sustained commitment and support. As leaders in the global community, it is our responsibility to ensure that the progress made towards peace is not undone. The human cost is simply too great.

*This blog can also be found on the Lord's of the Blog blogsite, alongside other pieces from Lord Mcconnell.

Sources for  first and second images.  
 
Posted by Lord McConnell in Corruption & Governance for column Issue Analysis on Jul 2nd 2012, 13:00
Comments: 5 | Post a Comment