Letters to the editor
Neglect for local authorities
Focus: Donor harmonisationand the EU / “No impact”,
Monitor p. 50.
D+C/E+Z 2/2008,
An article in D+C 2/2008 described the conclusion reached in a GDI discussion paper, namely that the goals of the Paris Declaration have not been achieved. Our experience in intensive cooperation with local-government bodies confirms this view.
ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability is an international association of local governments (www.iclei.org). For nearly 20 years, we have been developing international programmes to strengthen local governments’ capacity to implement sustainable development. In recent years, we have been observing a growing discrepancy. While local authorities are praised at every possible opportunity as relevant actors, global cooperation with municipal bodies is actually becoming more difficult. Why is this so?
– “Ownership”, no doubt, exists at the local level, but if recipient countries are given greater scope for decision-making, those to benefit are normally the national governments, not the municipal ones. Projects to strengthen local authorities are not even given priority in countries with poor governance, even though it would make sense to set out from the grass-roots levels in such cases. This is where public participation and control can be implemented, and doing so would boost democratic development in general. If the goal is really to strengthen democratic foundations, the fixation on national governments is counter-productive.
– International donor programmes are becoming bigger and bigger. “Pooling of funds” is the catchword. However, it would be possible to support local governments very effectively with smaller projects designed for the long run. Multi-million dollar projects often are not even necessary for (local) development, but that is what large consortia of regional banks and intermediary institutions thrive on.
– Even if there is increased multilateral cooperation on the part of the donors, in most cases, such cooperation remains restricted to individual target countries. Positive exceptions to this trend are seen in recent Europe-Aid programmes, which cover entire regions. Local governments are learning from one another in projects on local climate protection, new strategies for mobility, environmental management systems and so on. Nothing is more effective than inter-municipal North-South networks and, increasingly, South-South networks too. However, very often they do not fit into donor agencies’ focus areas for specific target countries. Today, it would be more difficult to arrange funds for an international project like the Local Agenda 21 than it was 15 years ago, when the Agenda was launched.
Practical problems of this nature must be taken into consideration in the discussion about the Paris Declaration.
Monika Zimmermann
Director, International Training Centre ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability; Training.centre@iclei.org, Freiburg
Irritating contributions
The myth of Western aidThe roots of Kenya’s crisis
D+C/E+Z 2/2008, p. 69 ff. und p. 86
In “The myth of Western aid”, K. Mahbubani does not give the impression that he is sufficiently informed about years of development aid efforts by the West. The essay of the author from Singapore is full of well-worn clichés in its dismissive judgment. Mr. Mahubani does not even try to make an enlightening contribution to explain his nearly completely negative statements. I do not believe myself that the track record of western aid and western policies is all that convincing. But Mr. Mahubani’s assessment does not at all do justice to the variety of attempts made, the complexity of the issues at hand, and even the results.
I was also irritated by M. Ngesa’s comment on the roots of the Kenyan crisis. The author refers to a thesis by C. Elkin that the British colonial power is to blame for the continuing malaise of hatred and tribalism in Kenyan society, and adopts it as her own. One gets the impression that she knows nothing about scholars’ debate on the British colonial power’s aspiration to enforce a so-called Pax Britannica and what it actually achieved in those terms – particularly in the first decades of colonial rule. Otherwise, she would have referred to that debate. She also seems to have little interest in analysing more recent post-colonial problems, for else her assessment would have been less scathing.
Prof. Dr. P. von Blanckenburg, Berlin
Sensationalism
Fragile statehood cover imageD+C/E+Z 3/2008
I’ll happily acknowledge that the image chosen for the front cover shows the connection between war, arms, destruction and perhaps Afghanistan. However, you have made a mistake. The destruction was the result of a fire at a district hospital, and Germany’s armed forces (see the soldier to the left of the photo) provided first aid. They also assisted in setting up a container hospital and a ward in the context of an assignment Germany’s Foreign Office (AA) gave the KfW development bank and German Technical Cooperation (GTZ). Initial plannig for a new hospital is underway (AA assignment to KfW). If commercial magazines/TV stations depict the muddy ruins of Kabul as proof of liberation from the Taliban, even though they have nothing to do with the Taliban, that is their business. With respect, D+C should be somewhat less sensationalist in this regard.
Thomas Schwabe,
GTZ, Eschborn
Editor’s reply
The cover image is a valid symbol for the complex topic of fragile statehood – and an accurate one too. Where would someone be visiting the scene of a fire armed so heavily other than in a crisis state? And where in Asia – other than in a crisis state – would a German soldier be doing so? The photograph documents Afghanistan’s difficult conflict situation. The soldier’s equipment certainly does not look like he was going to render first aid.
The photo was probably not taken immediately after the fire but during the visit of a high-ranking German politician to Mazar-i-Sharif. Again, bodyguards in peaceful nations are usually dressed differently. We did not set out to mislead readers, but looked for an illustration which depicts the dilemmas of fragile statehood.
To any reader who should feel seriously misled, we apologise. We would also like to ask everyone to please bare in mind, however, that photo coverage of war situations is always tricky. The material provided by embedded journalists, regardless of the side they are on, is almost always partisan. The image we chose is not – and that was another reason for using it. (dem)
D+C, 2008/05, Debate, Page 216-217
