* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
The EU’s relationship with aid and development has reached a generational turning point.
The EU’s relationship with aid and development has reached a generational turning point. Changes in the global political and economic landscape could mean future EU aid spending priorities reflect individual governments’ political priorities, rather than the needs of the world’s poorest.
Signs of this “mission drift” are evident in the new EU Consensus for Development. The Consensus reflects many of the political shifts seen in 2016, including a focus on migration and increasing state security. These objectives help serve the EU’s own political agenda rather than supporting people to lift themselves out of poverty. This is nothing new; the distribution of EU aid has often matched the countries and regions where the EU has strategic interests. The striking difference today is that many EU donors are increasingly explicit about their use of aid in the pursuit of domestic objectives, thereby playing down the importance of aid in reducing poverty.
In stark contrast, the EU’s multilateral development spending is dictated by objectives that align with the EU treaty’s development articles, as well as internationally agreed commitments and standards. These include a focus on fighting global poverty, fostering sustainable development, and aid effectiveness principles.
However, this protective rigidity is set to change. Once every seven years, EU governments negotiate the EU budget and these are about to start for the 2021-27 period. For the development budget, EU governments are likely to seek far greater flexibility to more easily align aid spending to the EU’s common internal objectives.
Because of Brexit, unless a new way is found to co-operate, the UK will have very limited influence over the priorities for development. Historically, the UK has been a powerful voice in the EU – working with like-minded countries such as the Nordics and Ireland to champion poverty-focused, good quality EU aid. The absence of UK influence means there is a real risk that EU development policy will become even more closely aligned with serving its own interests. This will inevitably influence the direction of the development and the donor community as a whole. The EU, and member states, is the world’s biggest aid and development donor and therefore plays a critical role in setting the terms for donors in development. In the next decade, the EU is very likely to influence UK development objectives, rather than the other way around.
During the negotiations, and following Brexit, UK NGOs will need to work with our European counterparts to protect poverty-focused development, as well as agreed standards and objectives in development policy. A coordinated effort will be needed to champion aid and development to promote global solidarity to help the world’s poorest people.
Until the UK leaves the EU, it is still a fully paid-up member of the club. This should mean the UK development community continues to engage with the EU. Consultation mechanisms, and funding contracts and opportunities should remain unchanged. Decisions made in 2018 will have significant influence on future European development and humanitarian collaboration, the quality and quantity of aid, and the UK’s and EU’s future relations with developing countries. A lot is at stake here; The UK’s NGOs must work with Europe more than ever to get the best deal for people facing extreme poverty, climate change and conflict.
Claire is currently Bond’s policy manager covering aid issues, EU development policy and Brexit, and the SDGs.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
