[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 12.4.2005

SEC(2005) 456

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EU Report on Millennium Development Goals 2000 – 2004 EU contribution to the review of the MDGs at the UN 2005 High Level Event {COM(2005)132 final}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 3

2. Focus of EU development policies and instruments 4

2.1. Development policies 4

2.2. Aid effectiveness 9

2.3. Policy coherence for development 17

3. EU Contribution to the MDGs 1-7 21

3.1. Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger 21

3.2. Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education 25

3.3. Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women 28

3.4. Goal 4: Reduce child mortality 30

3.5. Goal 5: Improve maternal health 32

3.6. Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases 34

3.7. Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability 37

4. Implementation of MDGs 7 & 8 commitments 43

4.1. Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability of the EU 43

4.2. Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development 50

4.2.1. Official Development Assistance 50

4.2.2. Trade and development 60

4.2.3. Debt 70

5. Issues emerging from MDG reports on priorities and actions towards 2015 73

6. Conclusion 82

Annexe1 List of national and Community MDG reports 83

Annexe2 The Millennium Development Goals, Targets and Indicators 85

1. INTRODUCTION

In September 2005, the UN General Assembly will review the progress made by UN Members in the implementation of the Millennium Declaration, and the global development agenda agreed at the Millennium Summit of 2000. It will look at contributions of both developed and developing countries towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and will discuss how to accelerate progress in view of ensuring that the MDGs will be reached by all countries by 2015 at the latest.

In preparation for this UN High Level Event the European Commission services have compiled this EU Synthesis Report . The report explains how the EU, as the world’s biggest donor and major trading partner, has contributed towards past progress on the MDGs. The report is based on the national reports prepared in 2004 and 2005 by the EU Member States[1] and (in the case of the EC report) by the Commission[2]. It follows the common EU reporting format agreed in June 2004.

This synthesis report describes the major contributions, efforts and activities of the EU and its Member States in support of the MDGs. It provides information on the extent to which the EU has focused its strategies, procedures and instruments on the achievement of the MDGs. It gives examples of specific EU contributions to MDG1-7. It sets out, in some statistical detail, what the EU has invested in the global partnership for development of MDG8 and in ensuring environmental sustainability within the EU (MDG7, target 9). Finally, it lists some specific actions that are currently foreseen to enhance the implementation of the MDGs. Through this report the EU aims to reconfirm to its citizens, its NGOs and civil society, its development cooperation partners and the global community at large its full and continued commitment to the MDGs. In this context the report also aims at raising public awareness and support and at stimulating debate on MDGs and the EU’s responsibilities and capacities in this framework.

This synthesis report does not pretend to provide a complete picture of the EU contribution. The full description of the many initiatives of EU Member States is found in the national reports, which add up to more than 730 pages of text. The synthesis report does not aim either to attribute progress on MDGs to EU inputs. The EU is fully aware that if one donor builds a road, a second constructs a hospital and the third pays for doctors and vaccines, it is impossible to say which of them can claim to have brought down child mortality. As a matter of fact the EU would argue that all of them contributed, but that eventually the success can only be attributed to the developing country that implements the vaccination policy and programmes.

Together with this synthesis report the Commission is also presenting, in separate documents, proposals for further EU political commitments and actions in the context of the MDGs. These Commission Communications deal with (1) accelerating progress towards attaining the MDGs [3], (2) financing for development and aid effectiveness [4], (3) policy coherence for development [5]. These proposals – that are not discussed in this report – will provide the basis for the actual EU policy response to the MDG challenge for the period 2005-2010.

2. FOCUS OF EU DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND INSTRUMENTS

2.1. Development policies

2.1.1. Converging objectives

During the 1990’s the policies and practices of development cooperation were gradually integrated into a new global development framework aimed at poverty eradication, promotion of gender equality, access to primary education, improving health and provision of other basic services, as well as sustainable development, and the establishment of global partnerships. The EU and its Member States have been major forces in this process.

In September 2000 world leaders from 189 nations agreed and signed the UN Millennium Declaration, binding them inter alia to a global project to decisively reduce extreme poverty in all its key dimensions. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that derive from the development part of the Declaration provide an agenda for global action. This agenda and the outcomes of the World Social Summit, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the Doha Development Agenda and the Monterrey Consensus are mutually supportive processes and essential building blocks of a worldwide partnership for sustainable development.

The EU has expressed its full commitment and dedication to the MDGs on several occasions. In June 2004, immediately after the accession of ten new Member States, the European Council declared that ‘ The Union must continue to strengthen its leadership role in the fight against global poverty. The European Council expresses its concern at the faltering progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, especially in Africa. It reiterates that the EU will intensify its efforts to fulfil the commitments undertaken in Monterrey, including through the exploration of innovative sources of financing, and will strongly support UN attempts to accelerate progress towards the achievement of the Goals’ [6].

The EU objective of poverty eradication and its commitment towards internationally agreed development objectives are also enshrined in the new EU Constitution[7].

EU Constitution

‘(...) Union development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty. (…) The Union and the Member States shall comply with the commitments and take account of the objectives they have approved in the context of the United Nations and other competent international organisations.’ (art. III-316)

‘(…) The Union shall define and pursue common policies and actions, and shall work for a high degree of cooperation in all fields of international relations, in order to (…) foster the sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries, with the primary aim of eradicating poverty (…)’ . (art. III-292)

2.1.2. Alignment of EU development policies with MDGs

Since 2000 EU Member States and the Commission have made, or are in the process of making, an effort to better align their development cooperation policies and practices to the overall objectives of poverty eradication and the achievement of the MDGs. The national MDG reports give the full details on this process. The following are short extracts of what each of these reports say on this issue:

Austria: Austria’s Development Co-operation Act 2002/2003 defines as general objectives the elimination of poverty, maintenance of peace and human security and protection of the environment. The rolling Three-Year Programme on Austrian Development Policy 2005-07 refers to the MDGs as the overriding orientation for development cooperation. Since 2000, Austria pursues the poverty reduction objective by prioritizing the poorest countries, especially needy regions and disadvantaged target groups. Strategy documents are under review to effectively enhance such a pro-poor policy.

Belgium: The Law on International Cooperation of May 1999 formulates the global objective of Belgian development assistance as “sustainable human development”, to be achieved through poverty reduction based on a partnership approach. This coincides with the vision of the Millennium Declaration. Belgium concentrates its cooperation on a few selected domains: basic health care including reproductive health, basic education, agriculture and food security, basic infrastructure and the reconstruction of society. Gender equality and the empowerment of women, social economy and environmental sustainability are considered cross-sectoral themes.

Czech Republic: In January 2002, the government adopted the Concept of Czech ODA for 2002-2007, defining principles and priorities of development cooperation, and adopting a multidimensional approach to the concept of poverty reduction. In April 2004, the government approved the new Guidelines for Providing Development Assistance that regulate the co-ordination and management of aid.

Cyprus [8] : Cyprus development cooperation is provided in the form of technical assistance and humanitarian aid, especially in the field of vocational training in Africa. Cyprus is in the final stage of establishing the appropriate legal framework.

Denmark: The Danish development strategy, established in the light of the Millennium Declaration, is closely linked to all the MDGs, and in particular to the MDGs on health, education and gender. Key priorities are outlined in the Government’s 5 year rolling strategic plan Vision for New Priorities in Danish Development assistance 2005-2009. A number of crosscutting themes are built into Danish’s development cooperation: women’s participation in development, environment, promotion of democracy and human rights. The poverty orientation of Denmark’s aid is further reflected in the choice of programme countries, which are amongst the poorest in the world.

Estonia: Estonian objectives and priorities for development co-operation policy are based on the MDGs. They are outlined in the Principles of Estonian Development Co-operation approved by the Parliament in January 2003.

Finland: The Resolution on Development Policy of February 2004 reaffirms Finland’s commitment to the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs, and provides an updated framework for the implementation of development cooperation. Eradication of extreme poverty has been articulated as the overarching objective of development cooperation, in line with the MDGs. The new Development Policy gives increased emphasis to policy coherence, value added and partnerships with non-state actors, with a particular focus on new initiatives to promote private sector involvement and cooperation between institutions.

France: France aims at a precise focusing of its development cooperation on the achievement of the MDGs. With this view, the Interministerial Committee for International Cooperation and Development decided in July 2004 to have a more selective country programming and better focused sectoral strategies. In consistency with the MDGs, these multiannual strategies will focus on basic education, water and sanitation, health and AIDS, agriculture and food security, development of infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa, environment and biodiversity.

Germany: The Millennium Declaration, including the MDGs, guide the medium-term design of German development cooperation. Poverty reduction, peace building and achieving justice in globalisation are the main goals of German development policy. The German government’s Program of Action 2015 , published in April 2001, describes German contributions to the Millennium Declaration and provides a development policy framework for the fight against poverty. The MDGs are embodied in the objectives of German development policy.

Greece: The legal basis for the Greek development cooperation was established by law in 1999. The objective of poverty reduction and the achievement of the MDGs are at the core of Greece’s development policy. The current policy framework specifies sectoral and geographical priorities, where Greece can provide comparative advantages. A series of key priorities for future action are identified in this context, including health, primary education and gender.

Hungary: The Concept Paper of the Hungarian development co-operation policy of July 2001 sets out the institutional, legal and financial framework of Hungarian development cooperation. Poverty reduction is Hungary’s principal development goal, and its policy concentrates on areas where Hungary can offer comparative advantages, such as transition processes, education, health, agriculture and water management.

Ireland: The report of the Ireland Aid Review Committee, approved by the Government in 2002, endorsed the MDG framework and reiterated Irish commitment to poverty reduction. All of the policies and activities of the Irish development programme are judged against this commitment and in their ability to achieve progress towards the MDGs. The programme also focuses on sectors critical to the success of the MDGs: education, health, HIV/AIDS, water and sanitation. Gender and environmental sustainability are addressed as crosscutting issues.

Italy: Italy’s development cooperation is inspired by the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs. Italy’s policy is essentially intended to achieve the objectives of eliminating poverty and fostering economic and social development, along with the promotion of health, starting with the fight against the major diseases, especially in Africa.

Latvia: The Latvian government adopted the Basic Principles for Development Co-operation Policy in February 2003. These set out the sectors of support, such as sharing its reform experiences. With its Policy Plan for 2005 , Latvia has now launched its first bilateral development cooperation programs.

Lithuania: The government of Lithuania approved in May 2003 a Policy Paper for the provision of development assistance for the period 2003-2005. The overall objectives of Lithuanian development cooperation policy are based on the Millennium Declaration.

Luxembourg: Poverty reduction and sustainable development are key objectives in Luxembourg’s development cooperation programme. Luxembourg seeks to contribute to the achievement of the MDGs. Its development cooperation action concentrates on the areas of education, basic health, water as well as rural development. Special emphasis is also given to gender, environment and the transfer of knowledge.

Malta [9] : Malta's objectives and priorities for development co-operation policy are based on the goals set out in the UN Millennium Declaration. Malta has recently established a Unit for Development Cooperation within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is in the final stage of developing a comprehensive development policy.

Netherlands: In the policy memorandum Mutual Interest, Mutual Responsibilities: Dutch development cooperation policy for the coming years of October 2003, the Dutch government confirms the central role of sustainable poverty reduction in its policy, stating that the MDGs are the means to achieve this objective. Development cooperation concentrates on four priority themes: education, sexual and reproductive health and rights, fight against HIV/AIDS and environment and water.

Poland: The Strategy of Poland’s Development Co-operation of October 2003 mentions poverty reduction and sustainable development as its overriding objectives. The Strategy outlines the future institutional system of aid policy and management structure that is envisaged to be in force as from 2005.

Portugal: Portugal has been pursuing its development policy in line with the MDGs. With a view to achieve the ultimate goal of reducing poverty, Portugal’s priorities are on education, health, governance, civil society and social services. Portugal focuses its aid on the least developed countries, mainly the five Portuguese-speaking African countries and East-Timor.

Slovak Republic: The establishment of the Slovak Republic aid mechanism was completed in 2003, and now includes strategic documents, an institutional structure, human resources and a legal framework. The Slovak Medium-Term Strategy sets the basis for a Slovak development cooperation programme. The Slovak Republic gave its unconditional support to the MDGs .

Slovenia: Slovenia focuses its development cooperation on countries in South East Europe and aims to assist them in building up capacities and reconstructing their societies. This approach is based on the Government decision in 1999 concerning the Stability Pact for South East Europe and is following the principles incorporated in meeting the MDGs.

Spain: The fight against poverty is the main objective of the new Master Plan for Spanish Cooperation 2005-2008 , which aims to align itself with the objectives established in the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs. The Plan includes a commitment to increased funds to LDCs, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa; and a greater focus on basic education, gender, water and basic sanitation. The new Master Plan confirms the principles and objectives established by current international commitments, and is in line with the Spanish Law on International Cooperation for Development passed in 1998.

Sweden: Sweden’s Policy for Global Development, adopted by Parliament in December 2003, has a single common goal for all policy areas: to contribute to equitable and sustainable global development. It forms the basis for a coherent Swedish policy for global development. This overall policy has the aim to contribute to the fulfilment of the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs. In the particular context of development cooperation Swedish policy efforts are targeted at contributing to an environment supportive of poor people's own efforts to improve their quality of life.

United Kingdom: The UK Government has expressed its commitment to the reduction and elimination of poverty through international partnership. Its development policy is focused around efforts to accelerate progress towards achievement of the MDGs. The Department for International Development (DFID) has made the MDGs the main focus of all its work. Development policy is set out in a series of White Papers and through the International Development Act , which came into force in June 2002, and which establishes the legal basis for UK development assistance.

European Community: Since November 2000 the Community has had a single overall framework which guides its development policy and cooperation with developing countries[10]. The EC policy statement is compatible with the Millennium Declaration objectives and orientations, in particular with the overall objective of the reduction and eventual eradication of poverty. In early 2005, the Commission has initiated a process to review the 2000 development policy statement, in view of further enhancing its effectiveness and its alignment with internationally agreed commitments, including the MDGs.

2.1.3. Measuring progress towards the MDGs

As explained in the introduction of this report, the EU does not aim to attribute progress on MDGs to specific donor inputs. EU policies can contribute to establishing the right basis and providing the necessary means to allow developing countries to achieve the MDGs. But eventual progress is made by developing countries, not by donors.

This is not to say that the EU should not try to measure actual progress towards the MDGs. It should, and it does. The Commission, in close collaboration with the EU Member States and international organisations such as the World Bank, UNDP and the OECD/DAC, has identified a core set of ten key indicators [11], drawn from the list of 48 MDG indicators. The indicators were selected on the basis of data availability, reliability and the frequency with which they were included by countries for their PRSP monitoring.

From 2003 onwards the Commission started to use the ten key indicators to assess the performance of the countries and regions where it provides development assistance[12]. In order to further focus on the outcomes in relation to the MDGs, the Commission has also put in place indicator frameworks and established a methodology for measuring progress in health and education in the countries where these are given support by the EC. All indicators are progressively being incorporated into Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) through the annual and mid-term reviews, to ensure a more systematic analysis of results achieved in terms of poverty reduction.

While useful as a measuring tool, indicators do not tell the full story. Not everything can be measured. MDGs are closely interrelated , and development strategies rarely target just one objective. To give just a few examples: combating HIV/AIDS is impossible without addressing women’s empowerment as a central concern. Reducing the proportion of people living in extreme poverty or suffering from hunger requires sustainable water use in agriculture and combating land degradation. Lack of access to clean water and sanitation has a major impact on health, notably child mortality, and adds to the burden of already strained public health budgets.

Moreover, it should be underlined that many EU interventions contribute to creating a conducive climate for achieving the MDGs, although they are not reflected in any of the indicators mentioned above. Yet, these interventions are essential to accelerating progress towards the MDGs. Examples: the EC and other Member States’ choice to provide a larger share of its assistance in the form of budget support allows the financing of recurrent costs, and gives the EU a stake in discussions on government budget priorities. The fact that an important proportion of EC development cooperation is targeted at the transport sector helps developing countries to create an indispensable infrastructure basis for economic development and effective delivery of basic services.

It is also clear that the MDGs cannot be achieved in conditions of chronic insecurity, which is often linked to government failures. The importance of assisting partner countries in addressing the root causes of conflict at the earliest possible stage has been promoted by the EU in recognition of the links between governance, peace, security, environmental resources and development.

2.2. Aid effectiveness

The objective of enhanced aid effectiveness, and in particular of coordination and complementarity between EU and Member States’ development policies, has a firm legal basis in the new EU Constitution.

EU Constitution

‘(…) The Union's development cooperation policy and that of the Member States shall complement and reinforce each other (…).’ (art. III-316)

‘In order to promote the complementarity and efficiency of their action, the Union and the Member States shall coordinate their policies on development cooperation and shall consult each other on their aid programmes, including in international organisations and during international conferences. They may undertake joint action. Member States shall contribute if necessary to the implementation of Union aid programmes.’ (art. III-318-1)

There is a strong EU commitment to enhance the quality and effectiveness of aid. Issues that are mentioned in the national MDG reports include: coordination of donor policies; ensuring complementarity and avoiding duplication between donor interventions; harmonisation and simplification of donors’ procedures, strategies and activities; aligning aid with developing countries’ priorities , procedures and practices; ensuring rationalisation to reduce transaction costs and administrative burden for developing countries; apply lessons of best practice .

2.2.1. Converging objectives

In March 2002, the European Council in Barcelona adopted a series of commitments to increase the quantity and quality of EU development assistance (see section 4.2.1. of this report). One of these so-called Barcelona commitments focuses on aid effectiveness. It called on the EU and its Member States to ‘ improve aid effectiveness through donor coordination and harmonisation, and take concrete steps to this effect before 2004’ .

Since 2002, the majority of Member States, as well as the Commission, have reformed the way they prioritise, organise and implement their external assistance. Nevertheless concrete implementation of political commitments is not yet concluded. Within the context of the OECD/DAC, the EU has been working towards a credible and ambitious “EU fast track” to implement the Barcelona commitment on aid effectiveness. In November 2004, the EU Member States adopted an EU Action Plan for coordination and harmonisation [13].

The international process on coordination received a strong impetus through the second High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF II) of Paris in March 2005[14], which provided a comprehensive agenda for immediate implementation.

Paris High Level Forum

At the Paris High Level Forum on “Aid Effectiveness: Harmonisation, Alignment and Results” in March 2005, international donors and aid recipients agreed on monitorable commitments related to ownership, harmonisation, alignment, results and mutual accountability.

The Paris High Level Forum is a follow-up to the High Level Forum on harmonisation held in Rome (February 2003) and the core principles put forward at the Marrakech Roundtable on Managing for Development Results (February 2004).

In preparation of the HLF II, the EU adopted a comprehensive framework with time-bound objectives. It is based on the Council Conclusions on harmonisation in November 2004. Moreover, the EU committed itself in Paris to additional concrete targets, in particular to: (1) provide all capacity building assistance through coordinated programmes with an increasing use of multi-donor arrangements, (2) channel 50% of government assistance through country systems, (3) avoid the establishment of new project implementation units, (4) double the percentage of assistance provided through budget support or sector wide arrangements and (5) reduce the number of un-coordinated missions by 50%.

2.2.2. Complementarity, coordination and harmonisation

The MDG reports indicate that EU Member States development cooperation strategies are increasingly based on developing country’s national poverty reduction strategies or similar frameworks[15]. Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) and national poverty plans provide the operational framework for making progress towards the MDGs at country level. Priorities for poverty reduction are identified, agreed and monitored through participatory processes. This improves policy dialogue with developing countries, partner ownership and leadership of the development process and aid programming. Several EU donors also support the partner authorities in the definition, implementation and evaluation of national plans for poverty reduction. Countries like Belgium and France report that they provide expertise. Austria contributes, where appropriate, to the elaboration of poverty assessments at the regional level as well as to household surveys at the local level.

Good practices and cases of operational complementarity between EU Member States and Community are developing on an ad hoc basis in the field, but several MDG reports indicate that more can and should be done. Most EU donors have recently increased concentration by focusing on fewer priority partners and sectors. This process, which in itself enhances aid effectiveness, also increases the risks of duplication and/or gaps. Questions on donors’ added value and division of labour are therefore increasingly important. To facilitate debate on these issues the Commission has produced an EU Donor Atlas , summarising information on donor activities and modalities.

The objective of strengthening complementarity is also reflected in national legislation and policy documents of EU Member States. For instance, the new Finnish Resolution on Development Policy explicitly states that Finland must consider the value added it can contribute to international development and potential sectors of support. The Greek national action plan for coordination and harmonisation identifies areas of comparative advantage. Other donors, such as the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, report that they equally focus their development assistance on sectors or partners where they can offer comparative advantages. Similarly, the new EU Member States, committed to use limited resources in the most efficient way, have set clear targets and preferences on partner countries and sectors.

As a concrete step in the implementation of the international agenda on coordination of policies and harmonisation of procedures the EU has launched a pilot initiative in four countries (Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua and Vietnam). This work builds on good practices such as joint financial agreements, co-financing, delegated cooperation and strengthened mechanisms of coordination.

EU pilot initiative

A report[16] assessing progress towards donor harmonisation in the field showed strong improvements in Mozambique, Vietnam and Nicaragua, but slower progress in Morocco.

Mozambique : EU donors have notably: aligned on the Poverty Reduction Strategy, established a joint Memorandum of Understanding with 15 donors (leading to coordinated and untied budget support), widely used SWAP/sectoral programmes, established joint performance assessment framework.

Vietnam : EU donors have agreed on a joint Action Plan for harmonisation and co-ordination and have already delivered in particular: the establishment of common EU norms for local costs in development activities (followed by other donors), an annual directory of EU co-operation activities, or Framework Agreement for co-operation, for instance on tax status for consultants; EU working groups on how to work more effectively in key sectors.

Nicaragua : A 10-donor Joint Financing Agreement to support the National Development Plan is under negotiation, and is expected to produce a positive result for the 2005 budget. Opportunities for greater harmonisation will improve as the Plan becomes better linked with the national budget. Donors work in sector co-ordination groups.

Morocco : Donors regularly meet to discuss harmonised procedures and exchange information on macro-economic and sectoral data. There have been concrete improvements in donor harmonisation in the water sector.

As a similar follow-up to the Barcelona commitments, the EU took also specific initiatives in the area of health and education.

EU initiative on education

In 2003, the European Commission, in close collaboration with EU Member States education experts, elaborated 10 indicators to monitor donors’ progress at country level towards harmonising and aligning their policies and procedures in the field of education. This EU initiative was presented to the Education for All Fast Track Initiative in March 2004. In this framework, the EU is financing a trial phase in view of implementing this indicator approach to harmonisation at country level.

Steps have been taken to harmonise and simplify donor procedures , both amongst and between Member States and with other bilateral and multilateral agencies. For instance, for some years the EU Member States and the Commission have published EU common cost norms in development co-operation. The initiative has been well received and is used by many donors outside the EU as well. The publication sets maximum norms for fees for consultants, national hired staff, travel and allowances etc.

EU Member States also work collectively through informal networks , such as the Nordic+ initiative. Following the Rome High Level Forum, the Nordic+ countries (Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK) endorsed a joint action plan on harmonisation in November 2003[17], which among other things looked at harmonising procedures in the field.

‘Nordic+’ initiative in Zambia

In 2003, the ‘Nordic+ countries’ signed an agreement with Zambian authorities on how to improve and coordination and efficiency and harmonise procedures in the field. A joint pilot mission to Zambia explored opportunities for harmonising procedures in the field. The mission formulated an action plan of progressive harmonisation. In April 2004, a follow-up mission reviewed the progress made thus far. Since the agreement was signed, the Zambian government has taken ownership of the process and in March 2004 a new agreement was signed between Zambia and a wider group of ten donors (Germany, the World Bank and the UN joining the newly developed action plan).

Amongst new EU Member States, cooperation between the Visegrád countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) contributes to more coordinated and effective development assistance and cooperation programmes for these countries. Trilateral projects, also involving other more experienced donor countries, should contribute to a further accumulation of knowledge within these emerging donor countries.

Despite these and other examples, the European Commission and several EU Member States have stated in their MDG reports that the coordination and harmonisation agenda should be taken forward more quickly. In cases where strong national leadership has forced the pace of increased donor coordination, such as in Uganda and Mozambique, significant progress has been made in coordinated budget support and coordination of donors programmes in the education and health sectors. These examples should inspire similar progress elsewhere.

2.2.3. Budget support and result oriented assistance

Currently EU Member States provide development assistance in a number of different ways, ranging from direct support to government programmes through financing of the government budget, to small scale financing of NGO action.

EU Member States recognise and promote the idea of government leadership in developing and securing financing for poverty reduction, and the Commission and a number of Member States have reported that they consider general budget support as the most effective way of giving a government the necessary fiscal space to plan resources according to nationally defined needs.

Where possible, European Community assistance to developing countries increasingly takes the form of general and sector budget support, mainly in the framework of the Cotonou Agreement and of the MEDA regulation. Sector budget support is beginning to be implemented in Asia and Latin America. 34 ACP countries have benefited from EC budget support in the last 5 years.

The UK anticipates that 44% of bilateral resources will be transferred through Poverty Reduction Budget Support (PRBS) in 2004-05. In Tanzania, Mozambique and Uganda, PRBS is already the principal form of aid. The UK note the experience of PRBS is still at an early stage, and will continue to access its effectiveness in comparison with other aid instruments.

Spanish participation in new aid modalities such as basket funding or budget support has so far been limited, but steps have been taken to rectify this (for example, Spain has recently signed Mozambique’s health SWAP).

Greek aid is implemented mainly through small projects and programmes, but it reports that the use of targeted budget support, as a means of assistance to national poverty reduction strategies, will be steadily increased in the future.

In Finland ’s 2004 Development Policy, increased programme-based cooperation (sector wide, PRSP-budget support) will be increased. The Finnish report announces guidelines on budget support and training on programme-based cooperation.

In its programmes with other donors, Germany concentrates on sectoral programmes (Sector Wide Approaches, basket funding) in co-financing PRSPs and other forms of budget support.

Where the environment is favourable, Belgium is considering various forms of budget support.

France adapted its procedures to allow rapid budget support. In this context, France has assisted e.g. Burkina Faso to better integrate PRSPs in national budget planning.

The Danish report confirms that when national conditions allow, Danish aid can be provided as general or sector budget support.

Budget support in health and education

A consultation of EU Member States health experts convened by the Commission in September 2004, concluded that a valuable lesson emerging from those countries that are making good progress towards the MDGs, is the importance of having a sound and comprehensive national health plan, behind which both government and its development partners can rally. The view expressed by several Member States is that budget support is the best way of supporting nationally developed plans. However, given the difficulty some donors have in providing budget support, the initial emphasis may need to be on all development partners buying into a nationally owned plan, and supporting it with, if necessary, a variety of aid instruments. A similar conclusion emerges from education, where EU Member States experts have developed a methodology using indicators enhancing a move from off-budget project support to budget support for national education plans.

In line with the increasing focus on budget support and similar instruments, EU development cooperation is also increasingly shifting towards result-oriented development assistance. The main objectives of this focus on results are to improve the quality and effectiveness of support to developing countries (without adding to the reporting and monitoring burden), to strengthen use of result indicators by partner countries in order to foster evidence-based policy-making and accountability.

Each UK Department has a Public Service Agreement (PSA) which sets out targets against which the Department’s performance is assessed. DFID’s PSA is focused on the achievement of the MDGs and several of the targets are shared with other UK Government Departments, reflecting areas of joint work, such as trade, debt relief and conflict prevention.

In Denmark , result based management is reflected in new planning and reporting processes and procedures, it includes target setting on harmonisation and alignment in the country programme.

The Netherlands has developed a monitoring system that will closely monitor project performance, sector performance and country performance for each partner country against the backdrop of that country’s progress in reaching the MDG targets.

The French MDG report mentions that France will adapt its methods of cooperation in the light of the recipient country’s capacity to manage international aid, using result based management.

Sweden strives for more result oriented development assistance, by increasing programme support instead of supporting individual projects, and applying new guidelines, that link budgets support to poverty reduction outcomes.

EC Result based approach

The increased focus on development results in EC development assistance is reflected in country strategy papers, budget support programmes and projects. Since 1999, the EC has linked its budget support programmes in ACP countries (and, more recently, its sectoral budget support in some MEDA, Asian and Latin-American countries) to the evolution of key outcome indicators drawn from the national Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, such as child vaccination, girls’ equality in primary enrolment, primary school completion rate. This shift to outcome-based conditionality not only ensures that levels of EC aid reflect countries’ achievements in poverty reduction, but also aims to strengthen the focus of partner governments on results, and to ensure ownership of policy choices. At the project level, the Commission conceived an improved results-oriented monitoring system. The main objective is regularly (on average every 12 months) to gather results-oriented information on projects in the field and to report on progress.

2.2.4. Untying of aid[18]

Two recent studies commissioned by the OECD/DAC and the European Commission have highlighted in parallel the added benefit and positive impact of further untying - in particular the untying of food aid and food aid transport in terms of effectiveness[19], and the coherence of aid. It is generally recognized that untying aid makes it more efficient, reduces administrative burdens, and increases the ownership of the developing country.

As agreed in Barcelona, the European Union has made significant progress in untying aid in the EU to ensure “better value for money” from its official development assistance (ODA). Currently more than 90% of total EU aid is untied (for more figures see section 4.2.1. of this report). The Member States have untied their aid to Least Developed Countries (LDCs), as mandated by the DAC Recommendation (since the new Member States are not yet member of the DAC, the recommendations do not yet apply to them). Moreover, a majority of them are progressing towards further untying, beyond the DAC Recommendation.

EC aid is by definition untied vis-à-vis its Member States (single market and competition rules apply to procurements also in the context of EC development assistance), as well as the developing countries with which it cooperates. The EDF-eligibility of recipient countries has allowed ACP firms to win 25% of contracts between 1985 and 2000. The same definition applies to EC food aid, which favours local and regional purchases and thus provides an important outlet for local surpluses.

Proposals for further untying EC aid are currently in the legislative process. In line with the conclusions adopted by the General Affairs Council in May 2003 and the European Parliament in September 2003, the Commission submitted to the Council and the Parliament two proposals, for tentative adoption in 2005: (i) one for a Regulation on untying of EC-funded aid (beyond the OECD/DAC recommendations) - to include nearly all developing and transition countries, and with the possibility of full untying to non-EU donor countries on condition of reciprocity and (ii) one for the renegotiation (now concluded) of the Annex IV of the Cotonou Agreement (while maintaining the existing system of price preferences in the EU-ACP framework).

In their national MDG reports the EU Member States summarise their commitments towards the untying of their aid as follows:

Belgium advocates the untying of aid both in relation to procurement and the use of national experts. This position has been incorporated in the latest Government Agreement on Development (2003). In practice, Belgian aid has been gradually untied and is almost totally so since 2000. Today, only one programme of country-to-country loans (for non-LDC countries) still involves tied aid.

As a definite step towards untying development assistance, the Danish Government decided that as of January 2004 the rules contained in EU procurement directives are to be applied when goods, services and construction projects are purchased by Denmark for development assistance purposes.

Estonian bilateral development aid, which mostly consists of technical assistance, is untied.

Finland has made efforts towards wider untying and is ready to continue discussions on this issue.

All aid provided by the French aid agency Agence Française de Développement is untied as from January 2002.

Since 2002 all financial aid and the investment related technical cooperation provided by Germany to LDCs has been untied. Also a major part of financial cooperation to other countries is untied and about 40% to 50% of free standing technical cooperation is procured locally.

As from 2003, most of the Greek bilateral development aid, which is implemented mainly through programmes and projects, is untied.

Ireland ’s aid programme has always been completely untied, not conditional in any way on the use of Irish goods or services. The commitment to the principle of providing untied aid was renewed and formalised in the Report of the Ireland Aid Review Committee endorsed by the Government in 2001.

Luxembourg ’s aid is almost entirely untied.

The aid provided by the Netherlands has been largely untied. At present, the Netherlands only has two programmes which are still formally tied to procurement in the Netherlands. Both programmes are supporting development-related export transactions by Dutch companies.

Portuguese ODA is composed above all of debt relief and technical cooperation, and therefore to date, examples of aid related to the financing of projects and programmes have been few in number and low in value. Tied aid has essentially entailed the funding of small projects and the provision of support programmes involving the import of consumer goods or equipment.

Spanish ODA is increasingly untied, due to the decreasing share and evolving nature of FAD credits ( Fondo de Ayuda al Desarrollo / Fund for Development Assistance), which happened to be the main source of Spanish tied aid.

Swedish aid is largely untied. Its food assistance is fully untied.

All UK bilateral aid is fully untied. Under the International Development Act of 2002, the sole purpose for which development assistance can be provided is to promote sustainable development and improve the welfare of poor people. Under the restrictions of the Act, aid cannot be ‘tied’ to the purchase of British goods or services.

2.3. Policy coherence for development

The obligation to ‘take account of the objectives of Development Co-operation in the EU policies that are likely to affect developing countries’ is embedded in the EC Treaty (art. 178). The new EU Constitution upholds this commitment to coherence in even stronger terms.

EU Constitution

‘(…) The Union shall ensure consistency between the different areas of its external action and between these and its other policies’ (art. III - 292).

‘(…) The Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries.(…)’ (art. III - 316).

It is generally acknowledged that an effective improvement in the coherence of developed countries’ policies would put developing countries in a much better position to achieve the MDGs. The EU, for its part, gives continued attention to the need to ensure that all domestic and external EU policies are consistent with and conducive to agreed international commitments and do not undermine the objectives of development cooperation. EU policies are now regularly evaluated and proposals of policy changes are subject to impact assessments. Policy measures are consequently adjusted, to strike a better balance between the diverse interests at stake.

2.3.1. Coherence of Community policies

Within the concise framework of this report it is not possible to present an assessment of the coherence of all policy fields which have a potential impact on developing countries. These include for example trade, environment, security, agriculture, food safety, fisheries, migration, research, information society, energy and transport[20]. However, specific examples of different EU and/or Community policies show that the EU is seeking to improve the coherence of its policies with respect notably to impacts on developing countries.

- With regard to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the coherence issue is particularly relevant in the context of fisheries agreements with developing countries. As part of its CFP reform proposals the Commission issued in December 2002 a Communication on an “Integrated Framework for Fisheries Partnership Agreements with Third Countries”[21]. The Commission proposed that EC bilateral fisheries relations involving a financial contribution gradually move from access agreements to partnership agreements with a view to contributing to responsible and sustainable fishing in the mutual interest of both parties. The communication explicitly refers to the need to ensure coherence between the CFP and other EC policies in the external field, in particular development cooperation. The Commission contracted external experts to perform evaluations, impact analyses and monitoring services. These tools will allow systematic and constant monitoring of the impact of the fisheries agreements.

- Since the early 1990s, the EU has embarked on a process of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with a view to reducing market imbalances and trade distortion, limiting spending and addressing societal expectations in the areas of environment, rural development and food quality and safety. The speed and scope of this process have been intensified by the reform adopted in June 2003, which constituted a major shift from support to products towards support to producers’ income, while further integrating sustainability concerns and limiting expenditures. This will lead to an increased proportion of EU domestic support through minimal trade distorting mechanisms, and hence reduced risk of impact on developing countries.In the specific case of cotton , the EU adopted in 2004 a reform, which marks a substantial change in the importance and nature of its support mechanism. This will significantly decrease its potential trade distorting nature. Trade effects, however, are marginal, considering that the EU only accounts for 2% of world cotton production. The EU is committed to monitoring the impact of its reform on cotton production and trade. The EU and African countries also engaged into a partnership encompassing trade and development (Paris, July 2004), with a view to the fair development of the African cotton sector.

- As regards its trade policy , the EU has taken important steps to promote the gradual integration of developing countries into the world economy, enhancing their potential for trade and contributing to their development. The most visible of these is the “Everything But Arms” initiative, approved in 2001, which fully opens the EU market to imports from the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). In the broader context of the WTO Doha negotiations, the EU fully endorses the objective to put development at the centre of the negotiations. The Commission Communication on Trade and Development of 2002[22] sets out how the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) can contribute to development. Key objectives for the EU in the DDA include improved market access for products and services from developing countries and the creation and strengthening of trade rules which are beneficial to developing countries. The ongoing Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations between the ACP and the EU are also key instruments for development given their emphasis on promoting regional integration, strengthening regional markets and institutions, promoting sustainable development, promoting diversification and developing supply side capacity to increase exports.

To effectively enhance policy coherence for development in the area of trade, specific coordination mechanisms have been established. Examples include the Joint Expert Group on Trade and Development, involving both Member States and European Commission.

- In the field of food safety , the EU is aware of the difficulties that more stringent EU regulations may impose on exporters in developing countries. Food safety has become a priority of the European Union, responding to the legitimate concerns of its consumers. Several programmes have been implemented to raise the awareness of public authorities and the private sector in developing countries regarding the trade implications of such measures and to help these states – through technical assistance – to overcome the potential difficulties of complying with EU sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS) requirements.

- Seen from the development perspective migration is first and foremost an issue between developing countries themselves. More than 80% of the world’s international migrants (both refugees and labour migrants) move from one developing country to another. Trying to assist these people where necessary is and remains an important aspect of the EU development agenda. Beyond the development agenda, EU policies on migration also have an impact on developing countries. In recent Council conclusions the EU has expressed concern with issues such as migrant remittances (where globally formal flows alone have now reached almost twice the value of ODA), brain drain (particularly relevant in certain countries and sectors, e.g. the health sector in sub-Saharan Africa), the promotion of circular migration and cooperation with the diaspora.

EC Impact Assessments: a tool to improve policy coherence

The decision making process within the Commission, which associates Commissioners in charge of all portfolios, including development, already offers a certain degree of guarantee regarding the coherence of new Commission proposals. As part of a comprehensive “Better Regulation” package[23], the Commission has introduced the tool of Impact Assessment, applicable to all major proposals envisaged by its services. It contributes to improved coherence of measures under preparation, as it associates all relevant Commission services to the analysis, and consults potentially affected stakeholders as regards different scenarios for the policy goal to be achieved.

2.3.2. Coherence of EU Member States’ policies

EU Member States generally recognise policy coherence as a highly relevant topic that requires specific attention (see also section 5 of this report). A case in point is Sweden, where, a Policy for Global Development was introduced in December 2003 with the explicit objective of contributing to equitable and sustainable global development as a single overarching goal for all areas of policy and political decision-making.

Sweden - Policy for Global Development

The policy aims to coordinate other policy areas and to utilise the synergy effects that such coordination produces. It explicitly intends to contribute to equitable and sustainable development and the achievement of the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs. Sweden is one of the first countries in the world to formulate such a comprehensive policy.

Progress on the implementation of the policy is reported to Parliament through annual reports, where each Ministry explains how its political decisions have contributed to equitable and sustainable global development. A citizen’s forum with representatives from the parliamentary parties, the government, authorities, non-governmental organisations, private sector, researchers, groups of experts and other interested parties will be set up with the aim of promoting a broad public debate on the Swedish policy.

The policy favours independent evaluations of the Swedish development assistance, based on the recognition that rich countries, like developing countries, should be subjected to international and domestic scrutiny with regard to policy and the implementation of pledges.

Sweden also supports the ongoing work to develop a Commitment to Development Index, that can be used as a tool for international efforts towards a more effective global policy.

Several other EU countries have taken specific initiatives to strengthen the coherence of their domestic policy making process. In Germany, all new legislative proposals are assessed in terms of development considerations. A number of Member States have strengthened collaboration across different government ministries (for example, Austria and the UK) and inter-Ministerial commissions have been set up (for example, in Hungary and Portugal) to ensure policy coherence for development. In Finland the high importance attached to coherence is reflected in the Minister’s portfolio covering both trade and development. Since the mid-1990’s, the Netherlands has been particularly active in trying to make policy coherence a central element of the development agenda:

The Netherlands - Institutional arrangements

The Netherlands is one of the EU countries where the Minister for Development Cooperation has full cabinet status.

Furthermore, non-development ministers and departments are being involved in issues related to policy coherence for development. A Memorandum on Coherence between Agricultural and Development Policy , was jointly drafted by the Minister of Agriculture and Minister for Development Cooperation.

In 2002 the institutional capacity for policy coherence was enhanced. The Minister for Development Cooperation set up a Policy Coherence Unit , further expanding the capacity to analyse coherence issues and work on them. The unit, with five full-time staff, is directly positioned under the Director-General for International Cooperation, and operates in project teams with key players from other divisions in the ministry and other departments. Issues covered by the project teams range from the Doha Round, cotton subsidies and fisheries agreements to migration and TRIPs & Health.

The Policy Coherence Unit is a member of the Coordination Committee for European Affairs, the inter-Ministerial body that prepares Dutch positions for all EU Councils and that reports directly to the Cabinet. In addition, all new proposals by the European Commission are systematically screened for impact on developing countries (PCD test) in another inter-Ministerial committee. Thus, the development and poverty perspective can be fully taken into account in Dutch positions.

In 2003 an Informal Network on Policy Coherence for Development ( PCD-network ) has been established. This network aims to facilitate closer collaboration between the main stakeholders on policy coherence in the Member States (i.e. the Development Cooperation departments and/or the EU Coordination Departments) and the European Commission (DG Development).

3. EU CONTRIBUTION TO THE MDGS 1-7

There is a distinct difference between MDG 1 to 7 and MDG8. While each of the first seven goals looks at a specific aspect of poverty, the 8th goal is about establishing a true partnership between rich and poor countries. The EU contribution to the latter can be assessed in relatively precise terms, but as MDG 1-7 have to be achieved in developing countries the EU input is by definition indirect. The EU Member States’ MDG reports generally recognise that attempts to attribute the evolution of MDG 1-7 indicators to particular donor inputs would be artificial and contrary to the practice of ownership and partnership. Rather than measuring donor performance, this section will therefore identify the specific policies, guidelines and initiatives that the Member States and the Commission have put in place to assist developing countries achieve MDG 1-7.

One generic element of this assistance is to try to support developing countries in monitoring their own progress towards achieving MDG 1 to 7. However, as mentioned in several national MDG reports, to date the quality of data (including disaggregation by sex and by regions) available at international and country level remains a major issue of concern.

Improving quality and reliability of data

Several EU Member States as well as the Commission have engaged at the international level in initiatives to improve data availability and quality. PARIS21, a partnership of data producers, users, and analysts from developing countries, bilateral donors, and multilateral institutions, aims to encourage and assist all countries to design and implement a National Strategy for the Development of Statistics by 2006. The EC has co-financed, together with DFID and the World Bank and in the framework of PARIS21, a study which has illustrated various weaknesses of the current dataset and highlighted possible areas of immediate improvement. Support was also provided to the UNESCO Institute of Statistics to build up statistical capacity for measuring the education MDG indicators in a number of LDCs, in particular in Sub-Saharan Africa; to the Health Metrics Network, whose secretariat is based in the WHO, and which focuses on strengthening health information systems in developing countries; and to the establishment of Food Security Information Systems in different countries.

3.1. Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Target 1 | Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day |

If projected growth remains on track, global poverty rates will fall to 13 percent – less than half the 1990 level. Rapid progress is being made in Asia and a return to pre-transition poverty levels in Eastern Europe and Central Asia may be feasible. But present trends see no alleviation of the burden of poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 360 million people continue to live on less than $1 a day [24] .

Poverty Reduction is the overarching aim of EU development cooperation. EU Member States and the Commission contribute to the fight against poverty in particular through support to the implementation of poverty reduction strategies , as Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, the UK and the Commission mention in their reports. Those strategies integrate the multiple dimensions of poverty and are based on the analysis of needs, constraints and opportunities in individual developing countries.

Poverty reduction strategies should also be encouraged in middle-income countries where the proportion of poor people remains high, as it helps to focus the attention of governments and donors on the need to develop pro-poor policies. While making progress on achieving several of the MDGs, many of these countries also show growing inequalities in income and access to social services.

Regarding the allocation of resources , the point of departure is that EU development cooperation concerns all developing countries. Nevertheless, the least developed countries and low-income countries should be given priority in an approach which takes into account the needs of people, the commitment and performance of governments and other actors to reduce poverty, and capacity of developing countries to absorb aid. Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal in particular mention their willingness to focus their aid on low income countries and on a limited number of sectors, in order to achieve a greater impact on poverty reduction. For example, over 80% of the Irish bilateral aid programme is targeted at the poorest continent, sub-Saharan Africa, primarily on six countries.

By supporting country poverty reduction strategies, the EU aims to maximise national ownership and effectiveness of support. This points towards instruments that fit most closely within the delivery and accountability systems of the Government concerned and that ensure the involvement of stakeholders such as social partners and other organisations in civil society both in the formal and informal economy. Wherever possible, notably where the fiduciary risk[25] is low or being appropriately reduced, several Member States and the Commission mention the objective of providing support in the form of budgetary support, supplemented by significant policy dialogue inputs.

EU – poverty reduction Mozambique

In 2001 Mozambique adopted the Plano de Acção pela Redução da Pobreza Absoluta (Plan of Action for the Reduction of Absolute Poverty, PARPA) as its central strategy for poverty reduction. Eleven EU Member States and the EC are providing support to the implementation of the PARPA in the form of budget support. This support should represent approximately $161m in 2005, equivalent to around 65% of total budget support disbursement to Mozambique for that year. No automatic link can be drawn between EU budget support and the results of Mozambique’s policies. However, the macro-economic framework provided by implementation of the PARPA, to which the budget support has contributed with grant financing of about 3,7% of GDP, has supported sustained economic growth (over 7% per annum) and sharply reduced poverty (the share of the population living on less than $1/day is estimated to have fallen from 38% in 1996-97 to 20% in 2002-03).

In the context of poverty eradication, the focus should also be on support to pro-poor growth and job creation . France, Germany and Hungary in particular mention the need to create a business-enabling environment, to support energy, transport and micro-finance. The UK, France and Germany, together with the World Bank, co-finance a work program on 14 country case studies and a synthesis report on How to Operationalise Pro-Poor Growth . The UK mentions in particular OECD DAC’s Practitioner’s Primer on Accelerating Pro-Poor Growth through Support for Private Sector Development . The EC supports the promotion of decent work in its Communication on the social dimension of globalisation[26].

Germany – Micro finance programmes

In addition to the strengthening of formal financing systems, Germany supports informal and semiformal decentralised finance institutions. German development aid promotes microfinance projects with a volume of €395 million for ongoing projects in financial cooperation and €20 million yearly for technical cooperation.

The support is directed first and foremost at the strengthening of microfinance institutions with a view to rendering them more professional. In this way, new small finance circles are created and, in turn, successfully associated with the formal bank and finance institutions. Provision of access to loans leads to a reduction in dependence on informal money lenders who charge extortionate interest rates. In this way, additional earning opportunities are opened up to the poor. Microfinance services allow for investment in education and the future of children, enhance the economic and social position of women and contribute to diversifying household income. Finally, microfinance projects can lead to an improvement in social commitment through organisation of members into ‘self help’ groups which undertake social, economic and cultural tasks over and beyond those of financial management. This leads to an expansion of the political influence of their members.

Target 2 | Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger |

Worldwide current estimates are that some 800 million people were undernourished at the turn of the century in developing countries. Although there have been reductions in Asia and the Pacific and in Latin America and the Caribbean, numbers continue to rise in Sub-Saharan Africa, in the Near East and North Africa. Civil conflicts, adverse climate conditions, particularly drought, environmental degradation and, in many of these countries, the HIV/AIDS pandemic are major contributing factors to this poor performance.

The Community is engaged in the fight against hunger by means of a comprehensive and broad based policy for sustainable development and poverty reduction at the national level . Where necessary, this policy is also extended to regional or sub-national levels, notably in those countries where widespread malnutrition coincides with a positive food balance on the national level. The policy brings the issue of food availability, access to food, responses to food shortages and nutritional problems to the centre of poverty reduction strategies. In addition, it tries to tackle the political dimensions of food insecurity, by promoting good governance, preventing conflict and building peace.

EU Member States are increasingly including food security among the top priorities of their poverty eradication strategies. For the UK, poverty reduction frameworks are a way of linking food and poverty analysis with public policies and actions. In this context, the UK is involved in the design and funding of a ‘ food safety net’ in Ethiopia. To promote awareness in its own country, in 2004 the Austrian government organised an information campaign on food security in collaboration with civil society organisations. Germany is particularly active in the field of food security and is contributing towards the recognition of the right to food and the implementation of the ‘Good Humanitarian Donorship’ principle. It puts the accent on access to food and not only on availability and production aspects. With the adoption of the ‘Berlin Statement’, the Berlin conferences on ‘Politik gegen den Hunger’ in 2003 and 2004 marked an important step in the evolution of food aid policy.

The fact that three quarters of poor people live in rural areas has motivated countries like Finland and France to make rural development a priority in their cooperation programmes. Support to the agricultural sector features in several Member States programmes, particularly favouring small farmers. The better management of natural resources is also an objective in the strategies of several Member States, for example for Greece.

France – food security

France implements a large food security programme, primarily aimed at the reinforcement of food crisis prevention and response mechanisms . In this context, France has defined the following priorities: 1) fight malnutrition at an early stage, through improvement of early warning systems, needs assessment, prevention, response to crises; 2) strengthen food security and improve living conditions in rural areas; 3) strengthen the competitiveness of agricultural production in developing countries; 4) strengthen the institutional environment, for instance by improving coherence between trade, agriculture and environment policies; 5) strengthen the scientific and technological bases, to promote agricultural and sustainable rural development through new production methods which preserve the environment.

In recognition of the multi-dimensional character of food security and poverty, the EC has reformed its food security strategy. In line with the 1996 Council Regulation on Food Aid and Food Security, the EC approach integrates food security policy into the broader objectives of sustainable development and the fight against poverty. In this context, food aid is dissociated from the management of agricultural surpluses and is more firmly linked to development concerns. The option of triangular and local purchases of food aid was also introduced.

The EC policy is underpinned by a Food aid/food Security Budget Line of roughly €450m per year, which currently assists some 30 particularly vulnerable countries around the globe to overcome problems of temporary food shortages, to manage post-crisis situations, to ensure the link between relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) and to address structural food security problems. Food security is also addressed as an overarching objective of development policies, strategies and programmes financed from Budget Lines and European Development Fund resources within the EC’s Country Support Strategies. Furthermore, ECHO dedicates a sizeable part of its annual budget of roughly €600m to emergency inputs and supplies, including food aid.

EC Food Security Programme

The EC Food Security Programme (FSP) adopts a long-term approach linking food security policy to poverty reduction. In countries where poverty results in insufficient access to food at household level, the FSP provides targeted budget support to key social expenditure programs, which have an important bearing on poverty reduction and food security. The advantages of such budget support include the possibility to promote a pro-poor reform agenda through policy dialogue, while operating within the single framework of the state budget. It also enhances feasibility of PRSP implementation against the background of a tight fiscal environment.

3.2. Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education

Target 3 | Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling |

Eight out of ten children in developing countries begin primary school but in many of the poorest countries less than half of them complete their primary schooling and the drop out rates are even higher for girls. Some 103 million children are still out of school and an estimated 70 countries are off track in achieving Universal Primary Completion by 2015, most of them in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Even though overall progress has been made in primary education since 1990, critical obstacles persist: almost 100 million children under 15 years old suffer the worst forms of child labour, 13 million children are orphans, the number of child soldiers has increased and children from marginalised groups and ethnic minorities are increasingly excluded. In terms of funding, the UN Millennium Project estimates that it would require between US$7 and US$11 billion each year in additional funds to ensure a good quality primary school for every child. Current annual external aid for basic education is only around US$1,5 billion.

3.2.1. Policy framework

The first priority for EU Member States and the European Commission in education for development is basic education, in particular primary education. A clear commitment is made towards achieving universal primary education and gender equality in education. This is implemented at three levels: through international institutions, interventions at country level (increasingly linked to national education programmes), as well as through supporting NGOs.

At the international level, the EU supports actively the Education For All and the Fast Track Initiative in partnership with other bilateral donors for education as well as UNESCO and the World Bank. Some EU Member States are also providing active support to UNICEF, in particular for the efforts on girls’ education and children with special needs. At country level, EU Member States and the European Commission enhance basic education through funding and policy dialogue around the national education sector programme. The third level of action is funding to NGOs for projects oriented towards basic education, an instrument chosen by several EU Member States. Apart from formal education, the EU supports non-formal education of young people in the framework of the YOUTH Programme.

This policy priority is translated into an increase in the overall financial resources dedicated to education in general and to primary education in particular. Several EU Member States consider basic education a first priority in their country programming and have decided to increase their overall ODA to basic education (the Netherlands, the UK, Sweden, France, Ireland and Denmark mention this in their reports). However, in absolute numbers and in proportion of overall ODA, the support to primary education varies widely between EU Member States. While some EU Member States aim at allocating 15% of their overall bilateral ODA to basic education, other EU Member States allocate less than 0,5%. For some EU donors the apparently lower contribution to basic education is due to the fact that they support a sector wide approach to education, while for others it is the result of a strong support for other areas of education, in particular vocational training and higher education. However, in addition to the targeted support to the education sector, more and more EU donors also aim to provide encouragement – through policy dialogue and/or performance indicators – that funds channelled to general budget support or to the HIPC initiative are dedicated to primary education.

United Kingdom – Education Programmes

The UK provides support to education programmes in over 30 developing countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. The following are examples of that support.

Together with the World Bank, the UK supports basic education for children in poor western provinces in China. The project is focused on increasing access to and completion of affordable, quality, basic education for all girls and boys with a special focus on minorities and out of school children.

As Kenya recently abolished primary school fees, it has brought a dramatic rise in the number of children going to school. The UK assists the Kenyan Government to provide enough school places to keep up with demand and to ensure that quality is sustained.

The UK launched an initiative to use Information and Communication Technologies to help deliver gender equality and universal primary education in Africa. It focuses particularly on teacher training, but also develops activities to show how ICTs can be used in Africa to support learning environments for street children and those with special educational needs.

A large variety of transfer mechanisms are being used by EU donors, ranging from project support to general budget support with performance indicators for primary education. This variety has a potential to provide for flexibility and improve aid efficiency, as long as donors coordinate and align their support. The European Commission, in close co-operation with the EU Member States, launched an initiative for donor harmonisation in the field of education (see box, paragraph 2.2.2).

The EU gives priority to complementarity of donor presence and interventions. In the field of education, there is some complementarity among EU donors in the choice of countries and a wide geographical coverage resulting from historical and linguistic relations with partner countries, further extended by the new EU Member States. However, several partner countries with both low primary enrolment rates and a clear financing gap for MDG2 have less than five donors in the education sector, while in other partner countries there are sometimes over fifteen donors present supporting education, not counting the Non Governmental Organisations. It is expected that following the recent Council decision on Advancing Coordination, Harmonisation and Alignment, the EU Member States will enhance in-country complementarity, efficiency of aid and will decrease the transaction costs for their partner countries.

There is a growing consensus among EU donors to support policy reforms undertaken by partner countries in view of enhancing universal primary education. Several EU Member States have increased their support to partner countries which have embarked on difficult policy reforms in their education system, such as abolishing primary school fees, implementing new national sector programmes or decentralising resources and management of the education system. Another major challenge is to insert education policy in the overall national strategy for poverty reduction. A growing number of EU donors orient their financial aid towards the national education sector programme , enhancing leadership for the Ministry of Education and better co-ordination of donors. In this framework, contributions from various donors co-finance the countries’ own education systems. The donors engage in the sector policy dialogue with the government and civil society, including annual joint sector reviews. EU donors are also giving direct technical support to Ministries of Education in sector analysis and diagnostics as well as institutional and human capacity building to promote long term sustainability. This is particularly important in fragile states, where in the short term many EU donors have opted for a project approach. At the local level, a priority is given to community participation in the school and to sound financial management.

3.2.2. Focal areas

Respecting the principle of country ownership, the focus areas in the EU support to basic education are: (a) extending the supply of basic education, (b) increasing equity and (c) stimulating demand for primary education.

In the framework of partnership and joint efforts, progress has been made in extending the supply of basic education. EU donors have contributed to improving access (construction or rehabilitation of primary schools, pre-school facilities, non formal education, etc.) and quality of education (teacher training, school books, curricular development, education management, etc.). In recent years, EU donors have given increased attention to quality, in order to enhance primary completion. Moreover, quality is becoming an increasing challenge in countries with rapidly expanding enrolment, in fragile states and in poor rural areas. Finally, many EU donors are actively supporting adult learning, literacy as well as vocational training. Many of these project interventions have a particular focus on women in poor areas.

A major challenge for most EU donors is equity in the delivery of primary or basic education. Up to now, a policy priority has been given to education of girls to achieve gender equality in primary, secondary and higher education. There is also a growing concern for equity between different regions or administrative areas within a country (or more broadly between urban and rural areas), ensuring that resources reach the poorest parts of the country to improve access and quality of primary education. Furthermore, some EU donors stress the priority of tackling HIV/AIDS due to its relation to education, both in terms of the supply of teachers and of the demand from even more poorer households or from orphans. Finally, some disaggregation (mainly girls/boys and urban/rural) is made in the joint assessment of progress inside national education plans. However, given the drastic increase in the number of vulnerable children (orphans, children injured from exploitation, child soldiers, girls suffering sexual violence, disabled, marginalised ethnic minorities) tackling equity and responding to the special needs of these vulnerable children has become a necessity for reaching MDG2. The EU donors recognise this challenge for the achievement of universal primary education by 2015.

While most attention has been put on supply, less support has been given to stimulate the demand for primary or basic education. This area of education is closely linked to progress on the other MDGs, and some EU donors stress the cross fertilisations between poverty and education, health and education, drinking water and education as well as gender and education. Other EU Member States raise the importance of the relevance of education for employability and for the cultural and social context in which children live.

EU – basic education India

In India, the government’s SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SSA) programme has as its objective to ensure that all children in the 6-14 year-old age group are in school and able to complete 8 years of elementary education. The pace of implementation of the programme is accelerated by grants from the EC and other donors.

Significant progress to achieving full access has been made in the majority of Indian States. In 2004, the number of out-of-school children was reduced from twelve to three million in two years time. Furthermore, pupil/teacher ratios are rapidly approaching the national norm of 40 students per teacher. Enrolment and completion rates of girls continue to improve. Special SSA programmes such as the National Programme for the Education of Girls at the Elementary Level and the provision of residential schools for girls have helped raise the rate of enrolment of girls to near parity. Where enrolment gaps continue to exist (e.g. remote areas, tribal minorities), these have been mapped and special ‘outreach’ education schemes such as Education Guarantee Schemes and schools run by NGOs and local bodies have been launched. SSA support to Early Childhood Care and Education schemes and their subsequent upgrading into primary education in underserved areas, also prove a very effective bridge into education for children who are first generation learners.

3.3. Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women

Target 4 | Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all levels of education no later than 2015 |

The MDG target of achieving gender parity in primary and secondary education by 2005 will not be achieved. Moreover, gains made over the last decade in women’s rights in critical areas, such as participation in economic and political decision making and sexual and reproductive rights, continue to be challenged worldwide. The gains remain as fragile as the democratic institutions and procedures that should give them legitimacy and protection.

3.3.1. Policy framework

The European Commission and EU Member States acknowledge that none of the MDGs can be achieved without addressing gender inequalities. The feminisation of poverty and the fact that women are most affected by HIV/AIDS are emphasised by a number of EU Member States. Improvement of the status of women and the promotion of gender equality as a human right are identified by the EU as two key objectives.

Most EU Member States make reference to the importance of using the international framework on gender equality in national strategies for promoting equality. The framework consists of the relevant Human Rights Conventions, CEDAW, ICPD, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs. The majority of policy priorities are built around strengthening women’s rights, access to resources, education and political and economic participation.

In order to strengthen the gender equality aspects of all the goals, the EU seeks to link the Beijing Platform for Action, the Beijing +10 Review of March 2005 and the MDG Review, through joint efforts and collaboration within the EU and with the UN system.

Most of the EU Member States identify gender equality as a crosscutting theme in development policy. Equally, in most Member States, support is being oriented both to mainstreaming gender equality in all activities of development cooperation and to funding programmes aimed especially at women and girls. Many EU Member States support girls’ education programmes, such as UNICEF’s Accelerated Girls’ Education strategy aimed at ending gender disparities in 25 countries where the gap is the widest.

The necessity of gender disaggregated data for measuring gender-responsiveness is brought up in several Member State’s reports. Further improvements in the field of monitoring were suggested in Austria’s MDG report:

Austria - gender monitoring

At present, Austria is working to make its general commitment to gender equality more specific through gender mainstreaming in country and sector programmes, the enlarging of gender methodologies (e.g. gender specific target group analysis, gender-aware project cycle management, gender impact assessments, gender budget analysis) in order to create adequate data bases that can be used for monitoring and evaluation purposes. These methodologies will take into account the requirements for MDG reporting and will have a poverty reduction and empowerment focus.

3.3.2. Focal areas

Gender-equal education is acknowledged as a necessity to improve the advancement of women. Therefore most EU donors focus on the elimination of gender discrimination in education. Increasingly, there has been a shift towards the support of gender equality in primary and secondary education programmes.

Elimination of gender inequalities in education

Spain adopted a Strategy for Gender Equality, which argues that the elimination of gender disparity in primary and secondary education requires an improvement in access, continuity, quality, and management of women’s education at all levels. Spanish Cooperation in this area promotes actions such as the improvement of educational infrastructures, support for non-formal education for girls and women, the reduction of education costs for girls, and support to allow mothers and pregnant women to continue in the formal education system.

Germany highlights the following activities for the promotion of girls’ access to education: (a) creation of incentive systems (safe schools, medical care for pupils, school meals, scholarships and other forms of assistance for funding like voucher systems); (b) promotion of participation of parents and the community in the development of schools; (c) reconstruction and equipment of schools and teacher training institutions and support for partner countries to create sustainable structures for their education system.

A second focal area that appears from the MDG reports is the enhancement of a greater participation of women in economic activities and in the workforce. In this context, the possibilities of women to access assets such as land or property, without discrimination or exclusion, is crucial. Several EU Member States give specific attention to micro-finance mechanisms and promotion of women entrepreneurs.

Participation of women in economic activities

Luxemburg cofinances an UNDP project in Mali on education, training and socio-professional integration. The project supports women economically and socially through three linked axes: training, access to credits and revenue generating activities. The project offers possibilities for literacy and vocational training for women and girls; it makes them aware of and trains them in micro-credits and supports their efforts towards income generating activities.

Sweden supports several efforts to strengthen women’s rights and access to resources. Special priority is given to women’s access to credit and advisory programs within the framework of developing small enterprises.

Hungary has started - in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy, in cooperation with UNDP, a development cooperation project aimed specifically at women entrepreneurs in Serbia and Montenegro. This Women’s Textiles Workshops Network addresses economic cooperation, SME development and cross border cooperation by women entrepreneurs.

A number of EU Member States identify national PRSPs as an important tool for the promotion of gender equality and cite the release of special funds for enhancing the gender dimension in PRSPs. Denmark for example, in partnership with relevant Ugandan ministries, women’s NGOs and other bilateral and multilateral donors, has contributed to efforts to improve the integration of the gender dimensions into the revision of the Ugandan PRS.

Most EU Member States’ contributions contain an element of strengthening civil society as part of a democratisation process. In some reports, the importance of women’s organisations and networks is pointed out. For example, Belgium mentions that women’s organisations in local communities are systematically taken into consideration at project level. Austria refers to supporting network building for female mayors in partner countries. Greece provides education, legal aid, and labour integration to victims of women trafficking. Through women’s networks, Sweden supports exchange programs between various vocational groups and women Members of Parliament.

3.4. Goal 4: Reduce child mortality

Target 5 | Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate |

Global under five mortality rate declined from 95 per thousand in 1990 to 80 per thousand in 2003. This progress translates into almost 2 million children lives saved every year. However, 51 countries are off track for meeting the 2015 target, 30 of which are in sub-Saharan Africa, where some 13.000 children die every day before reaching their fifth birthday. The main factors related to this issue are malnutrition, environmental hazards (unsafe water, hygiene and indoor smoke) and unsafe deliveries - including exposure to HIV transmission - and malaria. Access to modern water and energy facilities have a significant impact in reducing the risks that unsafe water and in-door smoke have on diarrhoeal diseases and acute respiratory infections in children.

3.4.1. Policy framework

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history. One of its essential principles is the right to survival, where countries have all accepted a code of binding obligations to ensure children’s access to basic services and to guarantee equity of opportunity for children to achieve their full development. With reference to the Millennium Declaration and the MDG4, the European Commission and the EU Member States strongly support the international agreement on protecting and promoting children's rights, called A World Fit for Children , adopted at the Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Children in May 2002. These time-bound goals include the 2015 MDG4 target, and a consistent set of intermediate targets and benchmarks during the course of this decade (2000–2010) such as a 90% Expanded Programme of Immunisation (EPI) coverage rate by 2005 and a 80% access to prevention of mother to child HIV/AIDS transmission.

Actions to combat child mortality relate to the protection of the most vulnerable - including children - and to the development of equitable and fair health financing mechanisms . The Council Resolution on Health and Poverty, adopted on 30 May 2002[27], refers to increasing the volume and improving the delivery of aid. A substantial share of that increase should go to support for social development in developing countries with special emphasis on improving health outcomes through equitable and fair health financing mechanisms, closely linked to progress towards MDG4. Both the focus on MDGs and the priorities outlined in the Council Resolution are reflected in national laws on international cooperation and the multi-annual strategies for health ODA of the EU Member States. Besides the overall relation with poverty reduction, MDG4 is clearly interlinked with MDG1 (reducing malnutrition), MDG5 (improving maternal and neonatal care), MDG6 (HIV, malaria prevention and treatment) and MDG7 (water and sanitation). The close relation between MDG4 and MDG6, and hence the principles adopted by the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) and women’s rights is crucial for the EC and EU Member States. In terms of child care, priority specific interventions at country and global levels are the Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses and Immunisation (including polio eradication), endorsed and supported by the EC and EU Member States.

France – prevention of child and maternal mortality

On child health, France priorities concern vaccination, the promotion of integrated management of childhood diseases, and the prevention of neo-natal mortality (linked to interventions on maternal mortality). France participates in financing GAVI, and contributes in particular, through WHO/UNICEF, to the eradication of poliomyelitis. France developed expertise in the field of the fight against maternal mortality and defined principles of global management of pregnancy and reduction of foetal-maternal risk. For instance, France has a project on prevention of maternal and child mortality and fight against HIV/AIDS in two regions of Burkina Faso, which focuses on pregnant women, mainly through training health agents and the rehabilitation of district maternity clinics.

3.4.2. Focal areas

The geographical focus of the funding from EU Member States and the European Commission is Sub-Saharan Africa , which is off-track for MDG4. Support to Africa accounts for over 50% of EU ODA for health. 31% of this aid targets the countries with lowest domestic resources for health.

Most of the EU support to MDG4 aims at equitable health services where child health is a priority. A large part of EU aid for health in developing countries is channelled through international organisations and global initiatives. The EU direct aid to countries aimed at improving health involves a variety of modalities. Most of the funds from EU Member States still earmark specific health areas and projects, often off-budget and with a focus on mother and child health programmes, communicable diseases and health policy and management . However, there is a gradual trend to channelling funds through participatory country-led processes around national programmes. The European Commission and several EU Member States are also providing significant funds for general budget support linked to improved health policies, strategies and outcomes.

In addition, the EU is a major contributor to the main UN agencies related to MDG4: WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and UNAIDS. The EU is also a leading donor in the main global initiatives related to child health such as the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI)/The Vaccine Fund, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and Roll-Back Malaria. These global initiatives aim at making progress on key prevention strategies such as coverage of immunization and long-lasting insecticide treated nets , and prompt and effective treatment of the most common causes of ill health and premature death through the Integrated Management of Childhood-related Illnesses (IMCI).

The EU is also a large and growing contributor to research in partnership with developing countries on effective and affordable vaccines (rotavirus, neumococcal, meningococcal, malaria, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis) and medicines aimed at improved child health.

3.5. Goal 5: Improve maternal health

Target 6 | Reduce by three-quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio |

Each year 500.000 women die as a result of pregnancy, and millions more due to causes which are avoidable or easily treatable using existing inexpensive technologies. A significant proportion of infant mortality is associated with this poor maternal health, and there are strong links between actions on MDG5, and actions needed on MDG4, MDG6 and MDG7, to reduce infant and child mortality. Despite major achievements in increasing knowledge and demand for contraceptives, demand is often not met, due to problems of delivery or due to factors which limit women’s right to control their own fertility. A massive gap remains in ensuring access to reproductive rights and supplies and services which are directly linked to women’s health, maternal ill-health and child survival. The average MDG investment needs for health for the period between 2006-15 are estimated by the UN Millennium Project at $25 billion per year, a significant proportion of which will be needed to build effective systems for women’s reproductive and sexual health.

3.5.1. Policy framework

European Union Member States signed up to and are committed to the achievement of the goals and objectives of the United Nations’ International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held in Cairo in 1994. These goals are directly reflected in the wider EC policy framework[28] and in the policies and actions of many EU Member States. With a focus on providing universal access to reproductive health care and services, the European Union attaches particular importance to the issue of maternal health[29]. The Cotonou Agreement explicitly refers to the importance of integrating population issues into development strategies.

The EU has recently reaffirmed the need for a strong leadership in the prompt implementation of the ICPD Programme of Action in the context of the Millennium Declaration approved in September 2000. The European Union has in fact agreed that the Cairo agenda is key to poverty reduction and fundamental to achieving the MDGs. The EC and the EU Member States have also recognized the need for additional financial resources for sexual