A critical assessment of German development policy

What is really effective?

The debate on the development results of German policies

19The Reality of Aid 2011

19

th r

ep

ort

20

11

Summary

The current English summary contains the highlights of this year’s German report at a glance, as well as the conclusions and political recommendations of terre des hommes and Welthungerhilfe.

Dr. Wolfgang Jamann

Secretary General

Chairman of Welthungerhilfe

This year Deutsche Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes Germany are publishing their

nineteenth report on “The Reality of Aid”. This annual report has been released since 1993

and is understood to be an instrument of critical analysis of the German Federal Govern-

ment’s development policy.

The report is perceived as an OECD-DAC shadow report on the officially declared German

development policy. It outlines the quantitative and qualitative aspects of German official

development assistance against the backdrop of the German Federal Government’s policy

aspirations and objectives and also integrates the international scope of German develop-

ment policy.

In the light of the approaching 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (4th HLF) - due

to take place in Busan, Korea, from 29th November to 1st December 2011 - this year’s

report focusses on the debate on the effectiveness of German development aid policy.

It assesses Germany’s progress in implementing the Accra Agenda for Action, pinpoints

current challenges and focuses on German development aid policies, analysing areas of

conflict associated within them.

Both Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes strongly emphasise the need for Germany

to develop a coherent policy towards the Global South. In their conclusions and political

recommendations, they also pinpoint development policy deficits, thus identifying require-

ments for a change in perspective within development policy, and suggest, as a basis for

further discussion, ideas on the development of new models and indicators of prosperity

and social progress beyond the current one-sided growth orientation.

Bonn / Osnabruck, October 2011

Danuta Sacher

Executive Directorterre des hommes Germany

Pre

face

3

At a glance

l Conditions that frame German development aid policy undergo fundamental change. In No-vember 2011, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) will be celebrating its 50th anniversary. This an-niversary comes at a time when North / South re-lationships are fundamentally changing. In the light of shifting global economic and political power structures - particularly manifest in the increasing significance of China - it appears that to divide the world into two distinct sections of ‘industrialised countries’ and ‘developing coun-tries’, or into the ‘rich North’ and the ‘poor South’, is becoming increasingly anachronistic. China is now investing billions in crisis-afflicted Greece; Brazil in 2011 owns more US government bonds than Germany and Switzerland combined. And this global economic and political upheaval has also put concepts and strategies behind tradition-al development aid policies on the spot.

l Before the Busan forum: spotlight on the ef-fectiveness of German development coopera-tion (DC). The German Federal Government has committed itself explicitly to increasing the ef-ficiency of German DC, and to implementing the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Ac-tion to this purpose. However, the BMZ’s current policy - aimed at shifting DC from a multilateral to a bilateral level, reducing budget support and intensifying project cooperation with German businesses - may lead to an additional increase in the number of bilateral projects, and is thus in danger of falling back into ‘projectivitis'. This would be inconsistent with the spirit of the Paris Declaration.

l Division of labour among donors: hardly im-plemented to date, and not without risks. The German Federal Government actively advocates a better division of labour amongst donor nations in the recipient countries. Each EU member state within their bilateral DC should concentrate on a maximum of three sectors in any given coun-try. At the same time, the number of cooperation countries should be reduced. In practice, however, there has been virtually no reduction to date. True,

the BMZ has reduced its number of official partner countries to 57, and plans to further cut back to 50; but in reality, German DC funds were being channelled into projects in at least 140 different countries in 2008. However, there is a danger that in withdrawing from certain partner countries, and thus reducing the DC funding, various MDGs

- particularly within the health sector - would not be achieved unless the shortfall could be met from local funds, or compensated for by increased ODA or by other donors.

l Above-average aid tying in German DC. In 2009, the proportion of Germany’s bilateral ODA which was tied to delivering set goods and serv-ices reached 27%, and was thus far higher than the average of Western donor nations. Moreover, 51% of Germany’s bilateral technical cooperation (TC) was tied - more than in any other OECD do-nor country. This problem could grow even more acute through the BMZ’s closer cooperation with private business. Wherever DC funds have been awarded specifically to German or European busi-nesses, i.e., within the framework of a PPP project, the aid has - de facto - been tied.

l German development aid policies increasing-ly results-oriented. The BMZ has announced that its concept of results-based financing for devel-opment will give it a ‘radical change of course’. Initially, there will be a test phase with a number of pilot projects. There is a deal of sense in this, as a wrong definition of ‘results orientation’ could prove to be problematic in a number of ways. It would undermine the democratic ownership of partners if civil society and parliaments are not involved in defining results; agreeing upon spe-cific results would increase the ’ex-post condi-tionality’ for the affected countries; a substantial effort for reporting and administration can arise when monitoring success; and the trend towards simple, easily controllable projects would increase, whereas longer-term, structural measures - such as those to promote democracy - might fall by the wayside. All in all, there is a danger of passing the buck for effectiveness - and thus also the risk of the project failure - wholly to the governments of

Hig

hli

gh

ts

The Reality of Aid 2011

4

the partner countries. Within the reorientation of development aid policies towards results-based financing these risks and side-effects need to be taken into account.

l High and starkly fluctuating food prices ag-gravate hunger problems. Global food prices soared to an all-time high in 2011. Besides cli-mate-related crop failures and the increased use of arable land for growing bio fuels, the rise in prices is increasingly attributable to speculation on the commodity market. Chaired this year by France, the G20 has placed this issue high on their agenda. In June 2011, the G20 ministers of agri-culture passed an “Action Plan on Food Price Vola-tility and Agriculture“. This action plan, however, does not scale up to the magnitude of the global food crisis. Current dramatics of this global food crisis can be seen once again in East Africa. Pri-marily in Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti, people are suffering the worst famine for sixty years. More than 12 million people are suffering from acute starvation.

l Unsolved global risks – insufficient answers from the BMZ. The unsolved risks connected with instable financial markets, global food insecurity and impending global warming have made clear the limitations of current models for develop-ment and prosperity, based primarily on econom-ic growth and market forces for finding problem solutions, while at the same time not fully ap-preciating equity issues, environmental problems and human rights risks. In the preparatory phase for the UN’s ‘Rio+20’ conference for sustainable development, this has led to an increased debate on alternative models of well-being and develop-ment strategies. During the last 12 months, the BMZ has reacted to these challenges by formu-lating new strategies and position papers on im-portant subjects such as human rights, educa-tion and rural development. The intention was to bundle these into the BMZ’s overall develop-ment policy concept. However, this has not been achieved. The new concept remains vague, and offers inadequate responses to the global chal-lenges.

l Insufficient increase in world-wide ODA – cut-backs in BMZ budget adjourned. In 2010, the of-ficial development aid supplied by the 23 western donor countries reached an all-time high of 128.7 million US dollars. Nonetheless, the ODA quota - in other words, the proportion of ODA to the gross national income (GNI) of these countries rose by

a mere 0.01% in comparison to the previous year, to total just 0.32%. German ODA increased in 2010 by almost a billion Euros, from 8.67 to 9.61 billion Euros. After plummeting in the previous year, German ODA has thus once again reached the 2008 level. In absolute terms - calculated as the total amount of ODA services - German ODA has fallen back to 4th position, following the USA, Great Britain and France. In the year of the BMZ’s 50th anniversary, Germany’s ODA - in proportion to its economic strength - is lower than in the year the BMZ was founded, now totalling 0.38% com-pared to 0.45% in 1961. Instead of increasing the BMZ’s budget, the German Federal Government is currently planning further cutbacks totalling 368.8 million Euros by 2015, as compared to 2011.

l Only a coherent policy approach can have lasting positive development effects. The BMZ rightly states that any debate on aid effectiveness will remain ineffective unless there is coherence and consistency with other policies. This is be-cause, in effect, virtually all policies affect de-velopment either directly or indirectly. Whether a government’s policies have a positive or nega-tive impact on the lives of people in the coun-tries of the South depends largely on the trade and investment policies of that government, on measures taken against capital flight to tax ha-vens, on the government’s attitude to commodity market speculation, and on their contribution to global climate protection. Hence, in the interest of sustainable development, the German Federal Government needs to draw up a strategy to realize policy coherence that is binding for all ministries. This strategy must be based on the human rights- based approach to sustainable development.

5

The Reality of Aid 2011

Conclusions and political recommendations

In the light of the approaching 4th HLF on Aid Ef-fectiveness in Busan, the focus of this report is on the effectiveness of DC - particularly seen within the framework of consistent and coherent poli-cies towards the Global South . Viewed against the backdrop of developments in 2011, this is particu-larly relevant – these developments having shown just how much the international parameters for development aid policies have changed – and are still changing.

The global economic and financial crisis, which many people prematurely declared to be over, has ‘returned’ to Europe as a crisis of the Euro. This is proving to be a burden on global financial mar-kets, and has increased the level of pressure on national budgets – which, it is to be feared, will have a negative impact on the countries of the Global South.

Because the G20 governments have failed to date to agree upon effective regulations to combat the growing problem of tax evasion in secrecy jurisdictions, the countries in the Global South are losing more income every year than they re-ceive in ODA. Budget authorities just don’t have the funds urgently needed to promote human rights effectively, or consolidate health and edu-cation systems, or to invest in public infrastruc-tures and strengthen democratic administrative structures.

Nor have the G20 governments succeeded to date in taking any effective measures to com-bat unfettered speculation on the stock markets. Speculation on commodity markets continues to result in dramatic fluctuations in food prices, and is hence responsible in part for hunger ca-tastrophes in many parts of the world, such as recently at the Horn of Africa. This food crisis has been caused by a fatal combination of factors including high food prices, internal conflicts, climate-related droughts and the failure of the international community to respond quickly to the warning signals of a pending disaster.

To date, the increasingly pressing warnings given by scientists about the dramatic consequences of global climate change, and their urgent plea for a paradigmatic transformation of the cur-rent economic and consumerist models (as re-cently formulated in the 2011 flagship report by the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), entitled ‘World in Transition – A Social Contract for Sustainability’) have not succeeded in overcoming the blockades in international cli-mate negotiations.

The unsolved risks connected with instable finan-cial markets, global food insecurity and impend-ing global warming have - not for the first time, but all the more urgently - made clear the limita-tions of a model for development and prosperity, based primarily on economic growth and market forces for finding problem solutions, while at the same time not fully appreciating equity issues, environmental problems and human rights risks. In the preparatory phase for the UN’s ‘Rio+20’ conference for sustainable development, this has led to an increased debate on alternative models of well-being and development strategies.

Inevitably, this has consequences for the future role and conceptualisation of development policy. During the last 12 months, the BMZ has reacted to these challenges by formulating new strategies and position papers on important subjects such as human rights, education and rural development. The intention was to bundle these into the BMZ’s overall development policy concept. However, this has not been achieved. The new concept remains vague, and offers inadequate responses to the global challenges. Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes nonetheless welcome the BMZ’s openness to debate - as long as such debate is not an act of symbolic politics, but actually moves the BMZ to pick up on suggestions made by civil society for more depth and farsightedness in an extended version of the new BMZ concept.

The development policy objectives cannot be viewed separately from the quantity of ODA as far as realistic implementation is concerned. In this

6

respect, one cause of deep concern is that Germa-ny is still so far from meeting its ODA obligations. Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes regret that the BMZ management did not even take up on the development policy consensus agreed upon by a cross-party majority in the German Bundestag to reach the 0.7% target.

To react to global challenges in an effective and authentic manner, German development policy must align both its strategies and the scope of its financial cooperation to the global needs.

In the 4th HLF on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, qualitative aspects of DC are in the spotlight of the development policy debates. Whilst it makes excellent sense to increase the effectiveness of development policy projects and programmes, limiting efforts to this alone would fall short of the mark. Nor will the proposal to proclaim a Glo-bal Partnership for Development Effectiveness at Busan suffice, if such a proposal is limited to the actors of traditional DC. Instead - and in line with the principle of ‘policy coherence for develop-ment‘ - the impact of all policy areas on develop-ment needs to be examined on an on-going basis, and these policies brought into line accordingly with the vision of a ecologically sustainable and socially equitable development.

In order for German DC to be truly effective in this respect, and in order for its impact not to be coun-teracted by policies made in other departments, terre des hommes and the Welthungerhilfe deem the following ten points to be essential:

1. More money for the South: increase country programmable aid

Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes have re-peatedly emphasised that increasing the ODA fig-ures is a necessary, but by no means adequate, prerequisite for ensuring that the additional DC funds actually reach the people in the part-ner countries. To achieve this, so-called country programmable aid (CPA) - i.e., DC funds which partner countries can directly tap into for their own local development programmes - must be in-creased in real terms.

We welcome the fact that Germany has increased the proportion and scope of such CPA over the last years. However, in 2009, it still totalled only 56% of German ODA. A further increase is thus essential. At the same time, measures must be

The German Federal Government should further increase the proportion and scope of country programmable DC funds. This is an essential prerequisite for ensuring that the governments in partner countries are actually able to use these funds for the operation of their development programmes. This must not, however, be at the cost of supporting civil society organisations or at the expense of promoting and raising awareness for develop-ment policy within Germany. The latter should be further expanded in order to approach the BMZ’s own target of anchoring development policy in the heart of society.

>>>

taken to ensure that CPA is implemented trans-parently, effectively, on the basis of democratic ownership, and comprehensively involving the affected population.

Wherever possible, the German Federal Government should increase forms of pro-gramme-based financing. It should prevent a fallback into ‘projectivitis’, i.e. individual projects instead of comprehensive pro-

>>>

2. Increase ownership – prevent fall back into ‘projectivitis’

Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes support the basic targets of the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action, to overcome the high level of heteronomy and lack of ownership of those affected by projects and programmes run by donor governments. Equally, partner countries should no longer be overwhelmed by duplicate structures and fragmented project financing of public entities. Even before the change of govern-ment in 2009, the number of German DC projects - 9000 in 2008 - was disproportionately higher than in comparable donor nations such as France and Britain. The BMZ’s current policies - aimed at shifting DC from a multilateral to a bilateral level, reducing budget support and intensifying project cooperation with German businesses - may lead to an additional increase in the number of bilat-eral projects. This would be inconsistent with the spirit of the Paris Declaration.

>>>

7

The Reality of Aid 2011

The German Federal Government should take active measures to reduce tied DC funding on a continuous basis, as stipulated in the Paris Declaration. DC must not be abused as an instrument for promoting for-eign trade. Any form of concealed aid tying - such as financial assistance from the ODA budget to support German businesses to win contracts from developing countries - must thus be rejected.

>>>

3. Eliminate tied aid

In the Paris Declaration, the governments princi-pally agreed reducing aid tying is a necessary pre-requisite for increasing the effectiveness of DC. In this light, it is problematic that 27% of Germany’s bilateral ODA in 2009 was still tied aid. Germany is way above the DAC donor country average. And for tied technical cooperation, Germany - with 51% - is right at the top of the scale. In their last report, Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes warned that this problem will become more acute through the increased BMZ cooperation with pri-vate business. This is further reinforced by the concentration and dominant market position of German technical cooperation through the GIZ’s conception of the “Global market leader in inter-national technical cooperation”: restricting PPP funds and TC allocation to German and European businesses means that aid is, de facto, tied. In this context, TC still poses a major problem, not least due to the existing institutional structure of DC in Germany.

grammes, which would be damaging to the partner countries, and expand its political and financial involvement in multilateral coopera-tion instead. Civil society and actors in the Global South should be actively involved in the process of drawing up a strategy for mul-tilateral DC. The German Federal Government and the German Bundestag should finally abandon their rigid and unfounded regulation of limiting the proportion of multilateral DC to overall German support to one third. The point here is not to insist that one way is bet-ter than another; one basic prerequisite for effective development policy are flexible co-operation instruments, without rigid funding limits. Seen in this light, there is no reason for the rigid 30:70 divide, nor any evidence to support it.

However, the German Federal Government should hereby take care that with the forms of programme-based financing as well as with multilateral DC minimum standards with re-gard to transparency, democratic involvement of civil society and parliaments, and inde-pendent control of financing are met. These are basic prerequisites to ensure the effective-ness of financing.

4. Increase the reliability and transparency of DC

Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes regard long-term DC commitments to partner countries as a key requirement for a serious, medium-term financial planning in these countries. It is con-siderably harder for the governments in partner countries to plan long-term when the customary maximum financing commitment offered by the BMZ is limited to three years. The fact that many countries still only receive one-year pledges is particularly problematic. Of the 33 countries in-cluded in the 2012 planning framework, only two will receive three-year pledges. Improvements could also be made to the transparency of the flow of DC financing. In the non-governmental initia-tive Publish What You Fund Germany only ranks somewhere in the middle.

To increase the reliability of planning in partner countries, the German Federal Gov-ernment should generally extend the lengths of DC commitments. It should concentrate on investigating longer-term forms of support, such as the six year MDG contracts already practiced at EU level. To prevent unnecessary fluctuations in the amount of money being channelled to individual partner countries, the German Federal Government should also sys-tematically work towards better coordination with other donor countries. It should increase the transparency and actuality of German ODA figures, making these available not only to the governments and parliaments in part-ner countries, but also to civil society, and should also work on an international level to-wards simplifying the definition of ODA (in-

>>>

>>>

>>>

8

If the German Federal Government reori-ents its development aid policy, supplying re-sults-based financing, it must take possible risks and negative side-effects into account. It should ensure that such an undertaking be monitored and evaluated by an independent body, involving also civil society. Development risk should not be borne solely by the partner countries, which are also not always in a posi-tion to advance funds. "Cash on delivery" should be implemented as a complementary approach, and not as an alternative to tradi-tional approaches. In addition, the definition of ‘managing for results’ should not be re-stricted to ‘results-based financing’, as this would contradict the concept of partnership as anchored, for example, in the Accra Agenda for Action.

>>>

Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes ap-peal to civil society organisations, academic institutions and the German Federal Govern-ment to actively involve themselves in the dis-cussion on global development goals and new measurements and indicators for the ‘develop-ment friendliness’ of a country. The aim could be to compile a development policy coherence index for politics. The Commitment to Devel-opment Index by the Center for Global Devel-opment in Washington could serve as a start-ing point; however, it has a number of flaws which would need to be overcome, such as its input orientation, or the restriction to seven selected policy fields, all of which are assessed equally. The German Federal Government should actively support the independent com-pilation of a possible coherence index.

>>>

5. Avoid the negative effects of results-based development financing

Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes support the underlying logic of results-based financing, whereby DC funds should flow primarily into veri-fiably successful programmes. However, a wrong definition of ‘results orientation’ could prove to be problematic in a number of ways. It would un-dermine the democratic ownership of partners if civil society and parliaments are not involved in defining results; agreeing upon specific results would increase the ’ex-post conditionality’ for the affected countries - often on top of existing IWF or world bank conditions; a substantial effort for re-porting and administration can arise when moni-toring success; and the trend towards simple, eas-ily controllable projects would increase, whereas longer-term, structural measures - such as those to promote democracy - might fall by the wayside. All in all, there is a danger of passing the buck for effectiveness - and thus also the risk of the project failure - wholly to the governments of the partner countries and disregard the responsibility of the donors as well as international influences.

6. Support the concept of a coherence index

Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes are con-vinced that the ‘development friendliness’ of the German government cannot be measured solely by the proportion of ODA to Gross National In-come (GNI). Whether German policies have a posi-tive or negative impact on countries in the Global South depends largely on whether they respect, protect and guarantee international human rights; on which trade, investment and agricultural poli-cies they support on EU level; on what they are doing to combat capital flight to tax havens; on whether they combat commodity market specula-tion in the context of G20; and on how much they contribute to climate protection. To measure the overall ‘development friendliness’ of the policies of a given government, new indicators and meas-urements for development policy coherence are needed, above and beyond ODA quotas. ‘ODA-plus concepts‘, which merely add up mechanically the public and private flows of financing to countries in the Global South, without taking the quality and effect of such funding into account, would be a step in the wrong direction.

volving countries of the Global South in this process). Any attempt to redefine ODA through merely juggling of accounts - but without a single extra Euro actually reaching partner countries - must be staunchly rejected.

>>>

9

The Reality of Aid 2011

The German Federal Government should take the United Nation‘s Earth Summit 2012 on sustainability in Rio as an opportunity to systematically rework its entire policy - includ-ing its new development policy concept - founded on a sustainable development mis-sion statement based on human rights. In this connection, it should also - at the UN level - actively promote the compilation of alterna-tive measurements and indicators for pros-perity and social progress, and the formulat-ing of ‘Global Sustainability Goals’ as an elaboration of the MDGs framework.

Rather than trusting primarily on the innova-tive powers of markets, the German Federal Government should emphasise in its overall development policy concept the significance of the state’s regulatory role and of function-ing public institutions.

>>>

>>>

7. Making sustainability the focus of devel-opment policy

To overcome the problems of climate change, glo-bal poverty and increasing social inequality, it is essential to turn away from the one-sided growth orientation and develop new models and indicators for prosperity and social progress. This must also be reflected in German development policy. The BMZ’s overall development policy concept, how-ever, does not live up to its own aspiration for a strategic re-orientation of German development policy. Its plea to anchor development policy in the heart of society is to be welcomed. However, the concept does not offer any solutions to the global economic, financial or environmental challenges, nor to the interdependence of global problems.

Above all, it does not contain any clear statements on the significance of rural development or re-gional trade. All in all, there is an over-emphasis on the role of the market and individual use of opportunities to the detriment of emphasising the significance of social skills and political re-sponsibility in solving or avoiding problems. Buzz words in the BMZ concept, such as ‘growth’ and ‘innovation’, are not values in themselves. They must be subordinate to a vision of sustainable de-velopment based on human rights.

The BMZ announcement to subject all fu-ture DC proposals to a “human rights MOT test” is basically to be welcomed. However, the German Federal Government should not limit such an instrument to development pol-icy alone, but implement it in all policy areas. It is crucial to involve human rights organisa-tions in compiling tangible criteria and proc-esses for such a human rights MOT test, thus ensuring their institutional independence. The idea of a complaint mechanism connected to it is a positive one, and should be put into practice as quickly as possible.

The Ministry of Transport test (MOT test) is an bi-annual test

of automobile safety and exhaust emissions required for most

vehicles over three years in Germany.

>>>

8. Human rights MOT test for all German politics

Generally speaking, the BMZ’s new concept on hu-man rights in German development policy is an important step in the right direction. By declaring human rights to be the binding guiding princi-ple, the BMZ has met the UN call to mandatorily take human rights into account in all development policy measures. However, the new concept avoids siding unequivocally with human rights in case of conflicts over outcomes with other policy areas, such as trade, agriculture, economic or security policies. When asked how such conflicting ob-jectives can be resolved in the interest of human rights, the concept offers no answers.

Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes explic-itly welcome the setting up of the Enquete Commission “Growth, Prosperity, Quality of Life” in the German Bundestag. An integral part of the Commission’s work will include de-velopment policy aspects, the rights of future generations and social concerns in the Global South. In times of globalisation, discussions on prosperity or the quality of life cannot be restricted to national borders, nor solely to the interests of the present generation.

>>>

10

The German Federal Government should adopt without further delay a strategy, bind-ing for all departments, to realise the princi-ple of policy coherence for sustainable devel-opment. Again, such a strategy needs to be embedded in a vision of sustainable develop-ment based on human rights. The BMZ’s man-date should be extended in order to imple-ment and monitor a supra-departmental co-herence and effectiveness agenda. The existing “Ressortkreis Internationale Zusam-menarbeit” (Coordination Group on Interna-tional Cooperation) should be upgraded and further developed under BMZ leadership.

On EU level, the German Federal Government should support the proposal made by the Euro-pean Parliament for a “rapporteur for policy coherence for development”.

At the same time, the German Federal Govern-ment should make an active plea at the Rio+20 conference to create the institutional basis for “ombudsperson for future generations” - both at the national level and at UN level, thereby reinforcing the rights of future generations to equal development opportunities and to an un-impaired natural resource base.

>>>

Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes call upon the German Federal Government once again to come up with a plan of action for attaining the 0.7% target by 2015. This must include an annual increase in German ODA by at least 2 billion Euros. This invest-ment in the future could easily be financed by the additional tax income anticipated and by the revenues of a European financial transac-tion tax (FTT).

As an immediate measure, Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes call upon the German Bundestag to increase the funding for DC and humanitarian aid in the 2012 federal budget by at least 1.2 billion Euros, this sum having been supported by the majority of MPs in the development policy consensus.

In addition, the German Federal Government should increase the proportion of revenues from emissions trading that are used for cli-mate protection and adaptation measures in developing countries, to at least 50%.

>>>

10. Take ODA commitments seriously – adopt a plan of action

For years, Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes have been calling upon the German Federal Gov-ernment to fulfil their ODA commitments in line with EU ODA targets, and to compile a national

9. Ensure policy coherence really to serve sustainable development

Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes agree with the observation made by the DAC Peer Review 2010 that the German Federal Government still has a considerable leeway in order to anchor develop-ment policy objectives in other policy depart-ments. Hence, we explicitly support the DAC Peer Review recommendation to formulate a declaration of principles for development policy coherence as well as to devise a coherence agenda with clear priorities, containing strategic, supra-departmen-tal targets and steps for implementation. As yet, such a coherence strategy is lacking.

plan of action for this purpose. This should pro-vide details on how the German Federal Govern-ment intends to increase its ODA by at least 2 billion Euros per year, the increase needed in order to achieve the 0.7% target by 2015. Simi-lar demands have been voiced by the European Commission and by the Chairman of the OECD Development Assistance Committee, Brian At-wood. Atwood further calls for a codex to ensure that ODA pledges are more than mere lip service, but that these are backed up by concrete plans of implementation.

Up to now, the German Federal Government has refused to tie itself down to a national ODA plan of action. Instead, the discrepancy between their affirmation to achieve the 0.7% target by 2015, and medium-term Federal State budget planning, has grown immensely. Rather than increasing the BMZ’s budget, the German Federal Government is actually planning on cutting its budget back by 368.6 million Euros by 2015 in comparison to 2011.

In the light of this gaping hole in the German Federal Government’s policy credibility, terre des hommes and Welthungerhilfe welcome the supra-departmental German Bundestag initiative for a “development policy consensus” as an important political signal.

Deutsche WelthungerhilfeFriedrich-Ebert-Straße 1 53172 Bonn Tel.: +49228/22 88-0 Fax: +49228/22 88-333 Mail: info@welthungerhilfe.de Internet: www.welthungerhilfe.de

terre des hommes Deutschland e.V.Hilfe für Kinder in Not Ruppenkampstraße 11 a 49084 Osnabrück Tel.: +49541/71 01-0 Fax: +49541/70 72 33 Mail: info@tdh.de Internet: www.tdh.de

The Reality of Aid 2011 19th report 2011

What is really effective? The debate on the development results of German policies

Publishers:Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e.V.terre des hommes Deutschland e.V.

Editing: Birgit Dederichs-Bain, Wolf-Christian Ramm, Klaus Schilder

Author: Jens Martens, Global Policy Forum Europe

Design: MediaCompany GmbH, Bonn office

Printing: DCM Meckenheim1st edition 2.500, October 2011

Submission deadline: 10. October 2011This report was printed using 100 % recycled paper

ISBN no. 978-3-941553-08-8

DWHH-Lager-no. 460-3023/2 terre des hommes order-no.: 302.1273.19