| |
Contributions from
the Column
Monitor
OECD peer review of German development policy
World Bank discontinues support for Chad
UN decides on Peacebuilding Commission
Webpage of German World Bank office
$1,9 billion pledged to fight avian flu
Rise in globalunemployment
Afghanistan’s public finances
No guarantee of ownership
German insurance giant to launch micro-policies in Indonesia
02/2006
|
|
[ OECD peer review ]
Mixed report card for Germany
German development policy is heading in the right direction. This was confirmed by French and Dutch experts who carried out the regular peer review on behalf of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), assessing the work done by the German Development Ministry and its agencies. The results were published in late December. Germany’s willingness to contribute to innovative approaches (for instance, programme-based budget support) was commended. The study also confirms that German policy is better attuned to international requirements than it was four years ago. At the same time, the OECD partners suggest the Federal Republic should keep on modernising its aid system.
The peer review praises Germany’s focus on poverty reduction. However, it also states that the corresponding Programme of Action 2015 is not the only policy implemented, with other goals including peace-building, equitable globalisation and sustainable development. Accordingly, the peer review experts detect a risk of the diversity of goals leading to “confusion over priority objectives”. Such confusion is considered even more likely as the German understanding of the term “poverty reduction” is rather broad, and includes aspects as diverse as economic growth, social development and governance.
Therefore, the OECD reviewers call for a more precisely defined strategy. Only a few paragraphs later, however, their report is full of praise for the Federal Republic’s readiness to make funds available for tasks that are not particularly popular with donors. Governance and environment are explicitly mentioned in this context.
In principle, the current peer review questions the large number of German development agencies for three reasons. First, this multitude tends to increase the probability of donor agencies defining strategies and programmes. Second, internal coordination within Germany takes up staff time and energy. Third, developing countries, in spite of their limited capacities, have to adapt to diverse institutions and procedures. The peer review states that Germany should strengthen the role of embassies and allow more local decision-making, in order to better align to the policies of the recipient countries and to harmonise action with other donors more consistently.
The DAC experts praise organisational reforms which have led to improved inner-German coordination. However, they doubt that institutional frictions can be further reduced unless the number of agencies is cut down. In this context, they also note that it no longer makes sense to distinguish financial from technical cooperation, as is still done in Germany. At the same time, the review applauds the contributions of German technical cooperation to capacity building, even suggesting that Germany consider striving for a leading role internationally in this area.
The DAC document identifies a need for reform in the area of humanitarian aid. German activities are said to be fragmented because the Foreign Ministry is responsible for immediate emergency assistance, while the Development Ministry takes on medium- and long-term tasks. The study therefore welcomes efforts to enhance political coherence and suggests more should be done in this respect.
The OECD panel approves of Germany’s agreeing to the EU objective of increasing national development budgets of the old member states to 0.51% of GDP by 2010 and to 0.7% by 2015. They also note that Germany will need innovative sources of funding or additional budgetary funds in order to achieve these goals. The peer review proposes that Germany draw up a medium-term implementation plan in order to ensure adequate disbursement of additional funds.
In a first reaction, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Germany’s Development Minister, said she felt endorsed by the peer review. She also confirmed that “implementing the European action plan is a key issue in the coming years”. According to her, the review’s suggestion to enhance local German structures in the target countries are in line with her own plans. Furthermore, the Minister expressed herself in favour of “improving interaction of different government bodies”. (dem)
Internet:
http://www.oecd.org/document/33/
0,2340,en_2649_34603_35878945_1_1_1_1,00.html
|
