Bidding a progressive donor farewell? Danish government cuts its development aid budget
Tuesday 5 February was a sad day. In the early hours of the morning, the new Danish government (a minority coalition between the Conservative People’s Party and the Liberal Party) secured a political majority for its 2002 budget as predicted with the support of the ultra right-wing Danish People’s Party. The budget, including its projected expenditure for the coming years, will have dire consequences for Danish development aid and for a number of poor countries around the world.
The new development aid budget is modeled on a review of Danish aid conducted by government and released on 29 January this year. Aid will be cut by DKR1.5bn (some US$180mn ) from DKR14.5bn to DKR13bn (US$1.7bn to US$1.52bn). At the same time, government has moved a number of activities, previously financed elsewhere, to the development aid budget, e.g. expenses related to refugees and Danish military contributions to international operations, such as peace-keeping missions.
Leading by example?
Danish aid levels will be reduced from a fixed 1.5 per cent of gross domestic income per annum, which has been the proud norm for many years, to 1 per cent. However, the percentage will no longer be static but politically determined every year. This means that Danish aid will not automatically increase with increases in gross domestic income as was previously the case. So, in short things may get a lot worse in years to come.
Government has stressed again and again that even with these cuts, Denmark will remain among the countries in the world giving proportionally most aid. True, the 1 per cent is still above the minimum aid level determined by the UN in 1980 (0.7 per cent). And the Danish government has declared that it will continue to put pressure on other countries to reach this level. But is that the right signal to send: we are cutting our aid but we want you to increase yours?
Putting on blinkers?
The main objective of Danish aid will remain poverty reduction, but defined more narrowly than was previously the case. Interventions, which have a direct impact on poverty reduction, such as education and health, will be prioritised, whereas activities conducive to – or one could easily argue a precondition for – effective poverty reduction, such as conflict resolution and prevention, will take a back seat.
And, as seems to be the flavour of the moment, the “fight against terrorism” will also play a central role in future development aid allocations. In its review, government’s has put “particular focus on ensuring that no Danish programme country renders direct or indirect support to international terrorism.” At the same, government will prioritise support for conflict resolution and prevention activities, which directly or indirectly contribute to “fighting terrorism”. (Review of Denmark’s Development and Environmental Co-operation with the Developing Countries, Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 29 January 2002).
Democracy, human rights and good governance will also remain objectives, although in practice it seems that a good record in this regard is seen as much as a precondition for aid as an objective. In future, as government puts it, “Danish aid will be given on merit” (ibid.)
Consequences for Africa
The cuts will affect a number of individual African countries as well as multilateral regional activities.
Denmark’s programme countries, most of them African, will be reduced from 18 to 15. Official development aid (ODA) to Eritrea, Zimbabwe and Malawi will be phased out altogether officially due to “bad governance”, while ODA to Zambia is still under scrutiny. ODA to Egypt, Burkina Faso, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia will decrease. Only ODA to Mozambique, Ghana and Benin will experience increases.
Outside the pool of programme countries, ODA to Niger remains at current levels, while ODA to South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Swaziland and Lesotho will decrease as a result of cuts in support to environmental initiatives.
Multilateral regional aid to environmental initiatives in Southern Africa has been frozen and support to other multilateral regional initiatives in Southern Africa and the Sahel region will experience significant cuts.
The cuts will also affect Danish contributions to a range of UN agencies, among them the more progressive United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
Danish development NGOs, a lot of them with extensive programmes in Africa, will also see their state grants reduced by an average of 9.5 %.
“International solidarity has been cancelled”
Government’s cuts have been heavily criticised by Danish development organisations, practitioners and political parties. The two parties forming the previous government, which spearheaded the development of the Partnership 2000 strategy, have lashed out at government. In its response to the release of government’s plans on 29 January, the spokesperson for the Social Democratic Party, Pia Gjellerup, stated that the proposals were a clear indication that “international solidarity has been cancelled”. (Politiken’s netavis - Politiken On-line- 29 January 2002) The Radical People’s Party said that government’s budget cuts will be remembered as the time when “Denmark turned its back on the world” (ibid.)
Danish development NGOs are also up in arms. A large group of them has organised a petition to oppose government’s plans. Hanne Selnaes, Chairperson of Ibis, which has activities in several African countries, in a press statement called it a politically easy solution to cut down on development aid to finance improvements in domestic welfare services because “those at the receiving end don’t have the right to vote in Denmark. That’s why Danish development and environmental organizations have an obligation to draw attention to the consequences of these cuts. And we will continue to do so even though the current political situation makes it an up-hill battle. […] No matter how one attempts to defend the cuts, they send a bad signal to our partners in the developing countries. It will destroy co-operation and partnerships, which it has taken us many years to build. We are letting them down at a time where – more than ever – there is a need to bridge the enormous gap between the rich and the poor. Government’s proposals deepen this gap.” (Press statement, Ibis, 29 January 2002)
One of the most vocal international critics of the cuts has been
South Africa’s Archbishop Desmond Tutu. His arguments are in line with the criticism leveled at government from domestic sources.
“It seems as if Denmark has misunderstood the reasons for September 11 […] All terrorism has to be condemned without any reservations, but it remains a fact that there is widespread bitterness and anger in the so-called developing countries towards the inequities in the international economic system. The gap between the rich and the poor is ever widening. Denmark’s decision is strange since it will enhance inequity.” (Politiken Weekly, 16 January 2002)
Permit me a moment of nostalgia:
“Denmark will in the future continue to demonstrate its solidarity with the millions of people in the world whose daily lives are marked by poverty and living conditions that do not permit them to make use of their rights and their potential. We shall live up to our shared responsibility for creating a global development that makes it possible to improve the living conditions of the world’s poor.” (Partnership 2000, Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Danida, 2000)
Sounded really good, didn’t it? But so it seems that we bid a sad farewell to one of the most forward-thinking donor countries in the world …
Read a very brief summary in English of the Danish government’s review of Danish development aid:
Bidding a progressive donor farewell? Danish government cuts its development aid budget
Tuesday 5 February was a sad day. In the early hours of the morning, the new Danish government (a minority coalition between the Conservative People’s Party and the Liberal Party) secured a political majority for its 2002 budget as predicted with the support of the ultra right-wing Danish People’s Party. The budget, including its projected expenditure for the coming years, will have dire consequences for Danish development aid and for a number of poor countries around the world.
The new development aid budget is modeled on a review of Danish aid conducted by government and released on 29 January this year. Aid will be cut by DKR1.5bn (some US$180mn ) from DKR14.5bn to DKR13bn (US$1.7bn to US$1.52bn). At the same time, government has moved a number of activities, previously financed elsewhere, to the development aid budget, e.g. expenses related to refugees and Danish military contributions to international operations, such as peace-keeping missions.
Leading by example?
Danish aid levels will be reduced from a fixed 1.5 per cent of gross domestic income per annum, which has been the proud norm for many years, to 1 per cent. However, the percentage will no longer be static but politically determined every year. This means that Danish aid will not automatically increase with increases in gross domestic income as was previously the case. So, in short things may get a lot worse in years to come.
Government has stressed again and again that even with these cuts, Denmark will remain among the countries in the world giving proportionally most aid. True, the 1 per cent is still above the minimum aid level determined by the UN in 1980 (0.7 per cent). And the Danish government has declared that it will continue to put pressure on other countries to reach this level. But is that the right signal to send: we are cutting our aid but we want you to increase yours?
Putting on blinkers?
The main objective of Danish aid will remain poverty reduction, but defined more narrowly than was previously the case. Interventions, which have a direct impact on poverty reduction, such as education and health, will be prioritised, whereas activities conducive to – or one could easily argue a precondition for – effective poverty reduction, such as conflict resolution and prevention, will take a back seat.
And, as seems to be the flavour of the moment, the “fight against terrorism” will also play a central role in future development aid allocations. In its review, government’s has put “particular focus on ensuring that no Danish programme country renders direct or indirect support to international terrorism.” At the same, government will prioritise support for conflict resolution and prevention activities, which directly or indirectly contribute to “fighting terrorism”. (Review of Denmark’s Development and Environmental Co-operation with the Developing Countries, Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 29 January 2002).
Democracy, human rights and good governance will also remain objectives, although in practice it seems that a good record in this regard is seen as much as a precondition for aid as an objective. In future, as government puts it, “Danish aid will be given on merit” (ibid.)
Partnership 2000: a shadow of itself
A perfect example of Danish development aid losing its cutting edge is the fate of the Partnership 2000 strategy. In 2000, aside from its “traditional” bilateral and multilateral aid interventions, the previous government secured broad support for a progressive and ambitious strategy, which takes a holistic view of and a flexible approach to poverty reduction. The need for interventions in a broad array of areas was identified, and the fight against HIV/AIDS, and conflict resolution and prevention were put forward as priorities. Expenditure on Partnership 2000 interventions were projected to reach the DKR550mn (US$66mn) mark by 2005. While the new government has not discarded the strategy, it has only set aside DKR160mn (less than US$20mn) per annum for Partnership 2000 until 2005 and no new priority areas have been identified. About two-thirds of the DKR160mn will go to a new UN fund for HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis, leaving a meagre DKR50mn (US$6mn) for other HIV/Aids interventions and conflict resolution and prevention, let alone any new priority areas.
Consequences for Africa
The cuts will affect a number of individual African countries as well as multilateral regional activities.
Denmark’s programme countries, most of them African, will be reduced from 18 to 15. Official development aid (ODA) to Eritrea, Zimbabwe and Malawi will be phased out altogether officially due to “bad governance”, while ODA to Zambia is still under scrutiny. ODA to Egypt, Burkina Faso, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia will decrease. Only ODA to Mozambique, Ghana and Benin will experience increases.
Outside the pool of programme countries, ODA to Niger remains at current levels, while ODA to South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Swaziland and Lesotho will decrease as a result of cuts in support to environmental initiatives.
Multilateral regional aid to environmental initiatives in Southern Africa has been frozen and support to other multilateral regional initiatives in Southern Africa and the Sahel region will experience significant cuts.
The cuts will also affect Danish contributions to a range of UN agencies, among them the more progressive United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
Danish development NGOs, a lot of them with extensive programmes in Africa, will also see their state grants reduced by an average of 9.5 %.
“International solidarity has been cancelled”
Government’s cuts have been heavily criticised by Danish development organisations, practitioners and political parties. The two parties forming the previous government, which spearheaded the development of the Partnership 2000 strategy, have lashed out at government. In its response to the release of government’s plans on 29 January, the spokesperson for the Social Democratic Party, Pia Gjellerup, stated that the proposals were a clear indication that “international solidarity has been cancelled”. (Politiken’s netavis - Politiken On-line- 29 January 2002) The Radical People’s Party said that government’s budget cuts will be remembered as the time when “Denmark turned its back on the world” (ibid.)
Danish development NGOs are also up in arms. A large group of them has organised a petition to oppose government’s plans. Hanne Selnaes, Chairperson of Ibis, which has activities in several African countries, in a press statement called it a politically easy solution to cut down on development aid to finance improvements in domestic welfare services because “those at the receiving end don’t have the right to vote in Denmark. That’s why Danish development and environmental organizations have an obligation to draw attention to the consequences of these cuts. And we will continue to do so even though the current political situation makes it an up-hill battle. […] No matter how one attempts to defend the cuts, they send a bad signal to our partners in the developing countries. It will destroy co-operation and partnerships, which it has taken us many years to build. We are letting them down at a time where – more than ever – there is a need to bridge the enormous gap between the rich and the poor. Government’s proposals deepen this gap.” (Press statement, Ibis, 29 January 2002)
One of the most vocal international critics of the cuts has been
South Africa’s Archbishop Desmond Tutu. His arguments are in line with the criticism leveled at government from domestic sources.
“It seems as if Denmark has misunderstood the reasons for September 11 […] All terrorism has to be condemned without any reservations, but it remains a fact that there is widespread bitterness and anger in the so-called developing countries towards the inequities in the international economic system. The gap between the rich and the poor is ever widening. Denmark’s decision is strange since it will enhance inequity.” (Politiken Weekly, 16 January 2002)
Permit me a moment of nostalgia:
“Denmark will in the future continue to demonstrate its solidarity with the millions of people in the world whose daily lives are marked by poverty and living conditions that do not permit them to make use of their rights and their potential. We shall live up to our shared responsibility for creating a global development that makes it possible to improve the living conditions of the world’s poor.” (Partnership 2000, Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Danida, 2000)
Sounded really good, didn’t it? But so it seems that we bid a sad farewell to one of the most forward-thinking donor countries in the world …
Read a very brief summary in English of the Danish government’s review of Danish development aid: http://www.um.dk/upload/forside/Summary-final_text.rev.doc
Helle Christiansen Cawthra
Project Manager: Thusanang
SANGONeT