With six months left before the deadline, the EU is still negotiating both its multi-annual budget as well as the EDF for 2014-2020. TheEquation EC has indicated that it intends to further strengthen the focus of the EDF on the poorest countries, but has revealed few details of how it intends to do this.

This working paper by Mira Markova, explores the possible approaches the EC could take to determine the 11th EDF aid allocations; their respective implications for the future of development cooperation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states; and the changing levels of development assistance to high-income and upper-middle-income countries (more commonly referred to as differentiation).

Our latest study, undertaken for the European Parliament’s Committee on Development, analyses the strengths and weaknesses of currentAfghan%20men,%20guns%20and%20tank_jpg EU engagement in fragile states, in particular its support to conflict prevention and periods of transition, within the broader international context. It examines the limitations of the instruments and methods implemented by the EU to address the problems of fragile states, and makes a number of recommendations to improve them.

Key weaknesses of the EU’s programmes in fragile and conflict-affected states include insufficient analysis of the root causes of fragility, ineffective early warning systems, and insufficient coordination with other international actors engaged in fragile and conflict affected states.

Although these challenges are not dissimilar to those experienced by other international actors, the EU’s performance is exacerbated by a number of factors that are specific to its organisational and resourcing arrangements: internal fragmentation of policy responsibility, inadequate translation of policy into programming at country level, and insufficient instrumental coherence. Investing in expertise in fragility and conflict-prevention has not, to date, been a priority, particularly at the operational level.

Read the report by Mikaela Gavas, Fiona Davies and Alastair McKechnie here.

e-updateClick here to read the EDCSP team’s monthly update for May.

The European Commission proposed policy of ‘differentiation’ aims to recalibrate aid and development cooperation in middle-incoUrbanisation%20in%20Asia_jpgme countries. The policy responds directly to recent changes in global poverty and wealth patterns, economic flows and geopolitical realities. In an increasingly heterogeneous development landscape, the EU has initiated a multifaceted approach in an effort to ‘differentiate’ between the diverging needs and capacities of developing countries.

Differentiation is a key feature of the EU’s new development strategy, An Agenda for Change, and will shape the future of EU development cooperation over its multi-year budget period that will run from 2014 to 2020 (European Commission, 2011a). The policy will determine the allocation of EU development aid to developing countries, shape decisions on the type of modalities used and the sector focus in middle-income countries, and will ultimately change the EU’s relations with these countries.

In a recent background note , Sian Herbert provides an overview of the state of play of negotiations on differentiation, with a focus on the Development Cooperation Instrument and the European Development Fund.

Read the paper here.

In this ODI Working Paper, Sian Herbert focuses the debate on the European Union’s (EU) new proposed policy approach to middle-income countries (MICs) – ‘differentiation’ – at the case study level, through an analysis of South Africa.

Shifting gloMother and children by road in Johannesburg_jpgbal patterns of wealth, poverty, trade, and geopolitical power are constructing new opportunities and challenges for development actors. As a result of these shifts, some donors have changed their aid allocation models, concessional benefits and ways of working with MICs. The controversy around, and diverging perspectives on the debates on ‘aid in MICs’ indicate that many development actors are struggling to redefine and shape their work and relationships with MICs. It also indicates that the internal and external context shaping development actors has changed significantly and warrants a revision, if not a change, in policy approach.

The EU’s proposed approach of ‘differentiation’ could lead to cuts in grant-based bilateral aid to 17 upper-middle-income countries (UMICs) and two lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) from 2014. These countries will still be eligible for funds from thematic and regional programmes. However, this policy will fundamentally change the nature of the relationship by altering the volume of funds, modalities, and sectors, and – crucially – eliminating the EU and partner country joint development programme and the negotiations that accompany it.

South Africa is a key country in this debate. The European Commission initially proposed that the country should be exempted from the policy of differentiation. However, a majority of member states, through the Council of Ministers, are pushing for South Africa to be included in the policy and thereby to lose its grant-based bilateral aid budget. Meanwhile, the European Parliament has kept South Africa on the list of eligible countries.

This paper seeks to analyse and inform this debate through analysis of South Africa. The methodology includes 37 interviews and two private roundtable discussions with key stakeholders in the Government of South Africa, the EU, other Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors in the country, non-state actors and academics conducted in South Africa and Brussels between November 2012 and March 2013.

Read the paper here.

In his latest blog, Simon Maxwell asks whether the EU can deliver joined-up thinking and action in international development. He recommends eight changes which should be recommended by the review of the EU’s external affairs currently underway. Read the blog here.

The EU first aLifting women out of povertyrticulated its policy commitment to gender equality in development cooperation in 1995, following the Beijing UN Women’s Conference, and has redefined it several times since.

A growing awareness of the gap between EU policy and practice on gender equality on the part of several Member States led the European Commission to draft an operational framework to strengthen implementation: the EU Plan of Action on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development (Gender Action Plan). The EU recognised that, despite progress over recent decades, women and girls continue to make up the large majority of the world’s poorest, and women are underrepresented in governments and decision-making bodies, have fewer opportunities and receive lower pay than men in labour and financial markets. There was also concern that the financial and economic crisis could hamper progress already achieved towards gender equality. The Gender Action Plan was included as an Annex to the 2010 Council Conclusions on the MDGs, raising its profile and linking gender equality firmly, if narrowly, to achievement of the MDGs.

In a recent EDCSP research report, Helen O’Connell focuses on the implementation of the Gender Action Plan. The paper explores what has been achieved, identifies challenges and proposes a series of actions to accelerate progress. It also assesses the extent to which the Action Plan remains up to date and, in particular, the extent to which it includes a central economic perspective.

Read the paper here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers