a comparative analysis (mainly based on dac peer reviews) geert laporte european institute for asian...
TRANSCRIPT
A comparative analysis (mainly based on DAC peer
reviews)
Geert Laporte
European Institute for Asian Studies, Brussels 28 May 2013
Japan and the EU: Development
Partners
Independent foundation working on EU-Africa relations for more than 25 years:
1. Non-partisan facilitation of dialogue 2. Practical and policy relevant analysis3. Linking key players in the EU and Africa,
through networks and partnerships4. Capacity building in Africa to bring more
balance in the partnership with the EU5. Building alliances with non-EU players in
development (Japan, BRICS, USA, South Korea, Switzerland…)
WHAT IS ECDPM?
Page 2
THREE PARTS:1. The changing development
context2. Comparative analysis Japan-EU3. Where can Japan and EU join
forces?
STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION
ECDPM Page 3
1. Global financial and economic crisis, particularly affecting EU
2. Declining aid budgets (ODA) but increasing needs for different sources of finance to tackle development and global challenges (e.g climate change)
3. New players in development (BRICS, G-20, private sector, development foundations,…)
4. A more political vision of development: Busan: “…it is essential to examine the inter dependence and coherence of all public policies – not just development policies…”
THE CHANGING DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
ECDPM Page 4
JAPAN• Economic power-
house but little political power
• Losing influence to new competitors, mainly in Asia (China, Korea,…)
PLACE IN GLOBAL LANDSCAPE
Page 5ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• Trade giant but political dwarf (in spite of Lisbon Treaty)
• “EU is a payer not a player”
• Losing influence to emerging economies (BRICS etc)
JAPAN
• From biggest aid donor (1991-2000) to 5th donor (2013)
• Presence in some 140 countries
• Not considered to be a leader in the policy debates and agenda-setting but quite an effective implementer
PLACE IN DEVELOPMENT
Page 6ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• EU “formidable player” (DAC): 60% of all aid in the world (EU & MS) & largest humanitarian donor…but declining budgets
• Network of 136 Delegations
• Strong on policy and strategy development (EU Consensus on Development, Agenda for Change,…)…but weak on implementation
JAPAN• Focus on economic
transformation (“self help” + own development experience ): economic growth, infrastructure, industrial production, agriculture,..)
• Commercial and business interests
• Fragile states and human security has been added
• Strong focus on technical cooperation
• Principle of non-intervention
POLICY ORIENTATIONS
Page 7ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• Poverty reduction • Value driven agenda
(good governance)• Inclusive growth • Support to regional
integration (own role model)
• Rather normative development approach (…with double standards)
JAPAN
• Key focus = (East) Asia (but also doubling of aid to Africa in recent years )
• Focus on middle income countries
GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS
Page 8ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• Key focus=Africa
• Least developed countries (“direct aid where it is most needed”)
• Increasing differentiation: no more aid to upper middle income countries
JAPAN• 0,18% of GNI (approx 10
billion $)• Rather traditional
approach: projects rather than programmes, loans, technical cooperation, tied aid,…
• Strong preference for bilateral earmarked aid (84% in 2008)
• Need to increase use of programmatic approaches and core/institutional funding
VOLUMES & MODALITIES
Page 9ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION • 0,44% of GNI (2010) =
70 Billion $ ODA• Collective ODA level of
0,7% of GNI will not be reached in 2015
• Strong focus on regional organisations
• Need to increase use of flexible core funding
JAPAN• Quite centralised and
hierarchical • More responsibility to
implementation and coordination agency (new JICA)
• Need to delegate more authority to the field
• Separate and additional reporting for Japanese earmarked funds= high transaction costs
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT
Page 10ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION • Complex institutional
architecture (unclear role division and duplication EEAS-DEVCO)
• Several financial instruments with heavy procedures
• Increased devolution of authority and staff to the field
• Intense scrutiny by EP, Council, European Court of Auditors, think tanks, NGOs
JAPAN
• ‘go-it alone approach’• Resistance to
harmonisation
COORDINATION & HARMONISATION
Page 11ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• Strong declarations but little action on coordination and complementarity
JAPAN
• No explicit policy statement, institutional mechanisms and monitoring and reporting systems on PCD
POLICY COHERENCE FOR DEVELOPMENT (PCD)
Page 12ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• In spite of solid strategic framework with appropriate institutional mechanisms, independent analytical capacities and tools to track progress … little concrete progress has been achieved
JAPAN
• Key focus on national governments
• Low involvement of civil society organisations/NGOs (only 3% of budget)
• Rather modest pro-development lobby and limited involvement of Japanese NGOs in implementation
PARTNERS & PUBLIC SUPPORT
Page 13ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• Key focus on governments and CSOs
• Structured dialogue with CSOs and local authorities
• Strong public support for development in most EU countries
• Africa increasingly important for both partners• TICAD V (1-3 June 2013 Yokohama)- EU-Africa
Summit (April 2014)• Common concerns, priorities and interests that could
be different from emerging development players• Complement “traditional” MDG development focus
with new Post 2015 development vision
WHERE CAN JAPAN AND EU JOIN FORCES?
ECDPM Page 14
