On Wednesday 18th October, CONCORD launched its 2023 AidWatch report, ‘Bursting the ODA inflation bubble.’ The report analyses both the quantity and the quality of EU ODA, finding that although reported figures are at a record high, 22% of reported ODA did not meet the most basic criteria to qualify as such.

Salvatore Nocerino, CONCORD’s Policy and Advocacy Advisor for AidWatch, then presented the findings of the report, outlining the sources of inflated aid and the main recommendations of the report to the EU: reduce ODA inflation and improve ODA’s contribution to economic development and welfare. The presentation also delved into the new methodology adopted by the 2023 AidWatch report with the aim of dissecting the official ODA definition to gauge the EU’s contribution to its overall objectives.

The first of the two panel discussions then got underway. The first panel discussion, ‘How much is really aid?’ aimed to address the proportion of inflated aid currently counted in ODA figures and potential means to reduce it.

Sylvie dos Santos, Head of Unit for Civil Society Engagement at Luxembourg’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, explained Luxembourg’s decision not to count in-donor refugee costs or climate financing as ODA, highlighting that this approach was a result of political will and a strong civil society driving this commitment forward.

Amaya Fuentes, CODEV-PI Delegate at the Spanish Permanent Representation to the EU, spoke about Spain’s recently adopted international cooperation law. The law aims to align Spanish international cooperation policy with Agenda2030, gives legal status to the 0.7% of GNI target for ODA, and strengthens the governance of the development cooperation system. 

Finally, Chiara Putaturo, Policy Advisor at Oxfam EU Office, highlighted the impact that inflated aid has on the EU’s credibility in partner countries. She also asserted the need to rethink the EU ODA system given it currently does not reach the people and communities that most need it as evidenced by AidWatch findings.

Haje Schütte, Deputy Director of the Development Co-operation Directorate at the OECD, emphasised the modernisation the ODA system has already undergone within the OECD DAC. He also underscored that the inclusion of in-donor refugee costs in reports of ODA was a point of major concern from the OECD DAC perspective and needs to be examined further.

Mikaela Gavas, Managing Director of the Centre for Global Development in Europe finished up the panel by discussing how to address the blurred boundaries between ODA and other spending to tackle global challenges. She also highlighted the need for the EU to optimise its current development finance in light of resource constraints in order to best serve partner countries.  

Some main takeaways from the events were:  

• There is a need for political will and a strong civil society voice to bring about reforms to ODA.
• The current ODA system is based on EU interests rather than priorities of partner countries; an effective system must align itself with programming and needs already identified by partner countries. 
• Many Member States still fail to reach the 0.7% of GNI target for ODA, resulting in a major loss of funds going towards partner countries.

The anticipated AidWatch 2023 report, released today by CONCORD, reveals critical issues in the allocation and reporting of Official Development Assistance (ODA). The report scrutinises the European Union (EU) and its Member States ODA efforts, presenting a stark contrast between reported figures and the reality of where the aid is truly directed.

While Official Development Aid (ODA) figures are reportedly at record highs, the AidWatch 2023 report shows how the EU and its Member States have managed once again to claim billions as aid that did not meet the most basic criteria to qualify as ODA. In monetary terms, it means close to EUR 20 billion – more than 1 euro in every 5 – is called aid but never reaches the intended communities in the majority world.

The EU, as a major ODA actor, has a crucial role to play in reducing inequalities both between and within countries. However, AidWatch findings show that current ODA allocations are still responding, to a large extent, to domestic and geopolitical interests rather than supporting partner countries’ own priorities.

The report elaborates on how current OECD DAC standards for defining and reporting on ODA are actually diverting aid from its intended purpose. These standards allow for the inclusion of flows like the counting of in-donor costs like support for refugees (a legal obligation under international law) or imputed student costs; the double-counting on ODA loans and debt relief. These flows do not meet the core criteria for ODA, leading to the misallocation of funds away from genuine efforts to support partner countries:

• The inclusion of in-donor refugee costs has placed many EU Member States in the peculiar position of being the primary recipients of their own aid – this is specially the case of a number of Eastern European countries. Overall, they inflated ODA figures by almost EUR 14 billion.

• Another significant factor contributing to aid inflation is the overestimation of ODA loans, Overall, artificially inflating EU ODA levels by an additional EUR 1.7 billion. 

On a country-by-country basis, the AidWatch report highlights significant disparities in aid efforts:

• In 2022, only three countries, Luxembourg, Sweden, and Germany, met the collective commitment made in 1970 to allocate 0.7% of their GNI to ODA, as per reported figures.
• Denmark, for the first time in four decades, fell short of the 0.7% target in 2022. 

Failing to comply with the internationally agreed-upon 0.7% target only makes it more difficult to reverse the setbacks of the pandemic, conflicts and the climate crises, which could jeopardise four decades of global human development progress.

Media enquiries:

Camilla Falsetti, Communications and Media Officer

Email: camilla.falsetti@concordeurope.org

Notes to editors
CONCORD: CONCORD is the European Confederation of NGOs working on sustainable development and international cooperation, made up of 26 national associations, 25 international networks and 7 associate members that represent over 2.600 NGOs, supported by millions of citizens across Europe.
AidWatch reports: Since 2005, CONCORD’s annual AidWatch report monitors the quantity and quality of EU Official Development Assistance. It holds the EU accountable for their commitment to allocate 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) to ODA by 2030.

The thoughts and views contained in this blog do not represent a CONCORD position.

Dear colleagues,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the trust to elect me as your president for the coming years. I am honoured, and humbled, and very much looking forward to continuing the great collaboration we have had until now.

We have a bumpy road ahead. Geopolitical, financial and environmental turbulences one after another are ahead. But I am still confident that using our intelligence, knowledge and strategic cooperation we can make wise choices about where to put our efforts to maximise the impact we are looking for.

CONCORD strategy is based on systemic thinking. We have, for many years, been working to transform the imbalanced and unjust political and economic systems and power structures. In recent years, we have refocused our efforts on reducing inequalities between people and between countries, looking at the multiple root causes of those inequalities. And we have, both at national and EU levels, re-emphasised the importance of a vibrant civil society for resilient and healthy societies, which promote the well-being of all people within the limits of our planet.

As the EU has transitioned from ‘development cooperation’ to ‘international cooperation’ to ‘promoting fair and equal partnerships’, we have stepped up our engagement with the EU on the nature of meaningful partnerships. We will intensify our demands for system change and greater equality for all people to contribute to just and inclusive societies. We will balance responding to shorter-term urgencies with reflecting on longer-term trends and their impacts on people and the planet.

We will praise open civil society space and refuse to be side-lined; we will increase our visibility and our profile. To this end, we will continue to fight for adequate funding both for our core issues and for our sector. We will strengthen our power and voice and will reach out to people across Europe to raise awareness of the critical issues of our time and to promote a culture of solidarity, global citizenship, and sustainable lifestyles.

While focusing on influencing the EU, we will also continue to evolve as a sector; we will reflect on and be propositional on how international cooperation and all actors can best contribute to sustainable development around the world. And we will work more closely with colleagues in other parts of the world to reinforce their calls for change, based on local proposals.

After reading again the great work done during the year, I am very proud of the guidance of our strategy to move more towards looking for systemic change. Like grand old American systems scientist Peter Senge together with John Kania and Mark Kramer, have said: Organisations involved in systems change can increase their odds for success by focusing on less explicit but more powerful conditions for change, while also turning the lens on themselves. They called it The Water of Systems Change.

There are six conditions and three levels in the water of systems change. CSOs have long worked at the first level of the triangle to inform government policy, promote more effective practices, and direct human and financial resources toward their chosen goals. Changing these structural conditions can have powerful effects. The results are readily observable and can often be assessed through traditional evaluation and measurement techniques. But without working on the other two levels, shifts in system conditions are unlikely to be sustained.

The same interdependencies operate at the second level. Shifting power dynamics and building relationships across sectors and political divides may feel especially threatening to CSOs but it is essential work in systems change. Transforming a system is really about transforming the relationships between people who make up the system. For example, far too often, organisations and individuals working on the exact same problems do so in isolation from each other. Simply bringing people into a relationship can create a huge impact.

When it comes to seeing and talking about the water of systems change, the third level – mental models – poses the greatest challenge and, for many CSOs, is the newest dimension of the work. Mental models are foundational drivers of activity in any system. Unless people can learn to work at this third level, changes in the other two levels will, at best, be temporary or incomplete.

The priority topics we have selected to work on also often take a long time to be achieved. That’s why at the same time we need to continue the work to make change happen through engaging, challenging, evolving and innovating like we selected in our strategy and checking with the conditions of system change where we are.

I reflected in the picture above some of our priority areas and how we mostly tackle the topics. This is not at all the whole truth but try to visualise where the work so far has mostly been seen. I hope it inspire you to think it deeper and challenge me and others for the further discussions how to improve our collective thinking.

Our 20th General Assembly was a very special one. Not only because it was the first in-person one after four years, but also because it was the occasion to celebrate CONCORD’s 20th anniversary.

Keep reading to know more about:

• The 20 years celebration
• The thematic sessions
• The statutory sessions

…and scroll through our galleries to see many pictures from the two days!

Celebrating 20 years of CONCORD!

2023 marks CONCORD’s 20th anniversary since its foundation. To celebrate this milestone we organised a party with all the people who contributed to this journey, both past and present. The event was a joyous occasion to revel in our accomplishments, reminisce about cherished memories, and set our sights on the future. We thank all the participants for that special moment, each person has played an invaluable role in shaping CONCORD’s growth and success over the years, and cheers to the 20 years and beyond!

During the party, we also shared a moving moment watching a heartwarming video realised with the help of many allies, partners, and members. If you haven’t watched it yet, do it now!

The thematic sessions

This year’s General Assembly has focused on the 2024 European Parliament elections, that will take place in June, and how to work together to prepare for the next mandate.

On the first day, we had a panel on the elections trends and scenarios with two valuable guests: Thomas Waitz, co-chair of European Greens, and Silvia Gonzalez del Pino, political advisor for S&D in DEVE and LAC region.

On the second day, our members worked in groups to brainstorm around tools and activities ahead of the European Parliament elections and the European Commission and European External Action Service renewal.

The statutory sessions

Our General Assembly approved with unanimity CONCORD’s new Statutes and Internal Regulations, which had to be updated according to Belgian law.

The General Assembly also approved our 2022 Annual Report: Shaping our Stories, which provides an overview of the key achievements and highlights from our Confederation and working structures in 2022.

Moreover, our President Rilli Lappaleinen (Fingo) was re-elected for the next three years, together with three board members: Ida Ragnarsson (CONCORD Sweden), Marta Iglesias (La Coordinadora) and Jeroen Uytterschaut (World Vision).

We would also like to thank our outgoing Board Member Branka Juran (CROSOL) whose mandate is coming to an end after joining our Board in 2019. 

CONCORD recently partnered with the European Parliament in the organisation of their 3-day Beyond Growth conference. The event apparently drew 2000 people to join physically, while 2000 more were online. That is an enormous success for a topic which, when CONCORD started working on it in the early 2000s, was far from ‘accepted’, to put it mildly. Maybe an even greater sign of success was the hastily penned, typically cynical– but very unconvincing – article in The Economist, which tried to denigrate the points made at the conference but ultimately just showed that even they are concerned we are being listened to!

The conference garnered the support of the President of the Parliament (who nonetheless misunderstood (?) the point of the conference and her several references to growth brought rye laughter from the audience) and of the President of the European Commission (who seemed to equate ‘beyond growth’ with decarbonisation, even if other metrics were acknowledged).

For the most part, the interventions had moved past proving the point that GDP is an absolutely inadequate indicator. There also seemed to be general acceptance that the pursuit of growth – as measured by GDP – over the past 70 years has caused inordinate, even irreparable, harm to the environment and to biodiversity and soaring inequalities.

So there was a greater emphasis on demonstrating that the whole economic model is highly flawed. Whereas at the end of World War II, focusing on output was necessary – people needed ‘stuff’ – now an increasing number of people are calling for politicians to recognise that we have plenty of ‘stuff’ in the Global North and the very fact of chasing this one (increasingly elusive) figure is leading us massively astray. GDP doesn’t distinguish between €1000 of healthcare and €1000 of teargas, as Jason Hickel so aptly put it during the conference. 

As I listened to the various speakers, the scale of the mental leap needed by policy-makers and people in positions of power became all the more clear. Even those EU leaders who recognise the need to move beyond GDP, to take into consideration ‘other metrics’, have not fully grasped that we are talking about a different kind of economy. An economy which is regenerative, redistributive and resilient. One that works for people and planet, not the other way around. EU leaders are still worried about ‘remaining competitive’, for example. Where does competition fit in a world where caring, sharing and well-being dominate? The competition should rather be about how to have the least impact on planetary boundaries and how best to reward workers.

Maroš Šefočovič, Commission Vice-President in charge of Inter-Institutional Relations, suggested that GDP might still be useful for measuring output, while immediately acknowledging that it doesn’t say anything about the social and environmental cost of producing that output. Quite right! So, if we were to take that into consideration and deduct it from the GDP measure, to get the true value of production, that figure might even be negative. What would that say about GDP?

Jason Hickel was quite clear: GDP is a redundant notion – everywhere! That doesn’t mean progress isn’t necessary and it doesn’t mean that production of goods and services isn’t necessary, especially in certain parts of the world. But it does mean that production needs to be reoriented away from individual benefit (eg. SUVs) and towards common benefit (eg. public transport). It also means that the role of profit – and who profits – needs to be reviewed, just as what is valued must be revisited. Why is it, for example, that care work is so seriously undervalued?

Scholars at the conference offered a huge amount of evidence that fiscal and monetary policies are fundamentally flawed – but since they were invented by people, they can also be reinvented and reimagined by people.

CONCORD organised a very lively debate about the links of the growth model with the Global South. One message rang crystal clear: capitalism = colonialism. It is ironic that in this day and age of hyper-vigilance and hyper-sensitivity to any -ism (ageism, racism, sizeism, sexism…), we are nonetheless largely ignorant of our ongoing colonialism. And even if we are aware of it, it is very hard to get around it. The economy of the Global North (or the minority world, as Lebohang Pheko, an activist and academic from South Africa,  called it) has been built on the back of the Global South (the majority world). And the economy in much of the majority world – instead of being geared to produce housing, food, healthcare, public transport for their own people – is actually designed so as to service the minority world.

That means we have a huge social and ecological debt to the Global South. And that when we go ‘post-growth’ we must also go ‘post-colonialism’. We need to re-configure our economies so that the ‘balance of trade’ is fair, and real prices are paid for goods, services and natural resources – prices which reflect the real environmental and social costs. We must bring to an end the days of companies outsourcing production because they can get away with paying less for labour in the majority world, because they can buy up valuable land at rock bottom prices or because they don’t have to pay tax in those countries.

Back in Europe, there is a huge onus on us to call for change. To make it clear that we want leaders who understand the need for radical, transformative change and who will deliver that change. Maybe the European elections next year are an opportunity? It is our responsibility to vote for leaders who have the courage to make historic, life-changing decisions. Decisions to change the economic model and to put people and planet first, not profit. It’s time to put the wind up The Economist!