Investing in the security of our partner countries is in the EU’s and our partners’ interests. We all face common challenges of terrorism, conflicts and extremism.” – Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, July 2016
Aid spending figures show that peace and security has not traditionally been a priority sector for donor spending in developing countries. Yet, strengthening state security in developing countries has emerged as a new policy priority for some European Union (EU) donors. Federica Mogherini’s proposals for security and development in partner countries are a recent example. At first sight, this attention to strengthening security and development is welcome. Security that safeguards personal safety and protects from physical threat or fear of physical threat is vital for everyone, including people living in developing countries.
This is acknowledged in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16,5 which is dedicated to promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development. People in developing countries have every right to security, and development aid that is spent on security should be directly targeted at their security needs. To do this effectively, aid needs to be spent on the right kind of security-focused programmes; those that prioritise support to partner governments and local civil society organisations (CSOs) to promote human rights, as well as accountability to civilian populations. This approach is necessary to improve security in all countries, but it is critical for cooperation with fragile and unstable states.
Yet donors are taking a different approach. EU donors are using aid as a tool to counter threats to Europe; in public communications and activities on the ground, donors are increasingly committing aid to the purposes of preventing extremism or terrorism, or controlling insurgency and migration. It is true that clamping down on such realities may help protect people in developing countries from fear or harm; however, donors should align their aid efforts with development effectiveness principles to ensure positive and sustainable development outcomes for people in partner countries. Excessive emphasis on achieving donors’ domestic security goals may infact undermine long term development strategies, which are instrumetal in creating the preconditions for peaceful, just and inclusive societies.
Many EU donors, both at the multilateral and bilateral levels, are explicitly signalling their intention to further align aid spending with their foreign and security objectives.6 For aid spending, this means allocating more funds to strengthening military capacity, and security and policy forces in partner countries.
It also means investing aid in programmes to prevent violent terrorism. Until February 2016, the eligibility criteria for official development assistance (ODA) administered by the Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation’s (OECD’s) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) only permitted peace and security expenditure to be counted as ODA under limited circumstances. However, the DAC and its donor members revamped the rules on security-related activities. The DAC wanted to improve the reporting and tracking of spending on military and security-related sectors – under the old system, it was too easy for donors to circumvent rules, and the DAC was not always able to detect ineligible spending. Donors saw this as an opportunity to widen the scope of the ODA eligibility criteria, allowing them to legitimately use their aid budgets for spending on security activities in developing countries under DAC rules. Despite more flexibility in the new DAC rules, these continue to stipulate that spending on security and military must be used for development purposes.
It is too soon to measure or judge the full extent of the influence of the new DAC rules on aid figures. The implications of donors aligning aid policy more closely to their domestic security agendas are also not yet fully borne out. However, this paper attempts to examine EU donors’ policies on aid and security, and highlights the risks and opportunities the new security agenda poses to development principles and effectiveness. Of the risks, there is particular concern about how the new aid and security agenda might undermine donors’ commitment to fighting poverty in developing countries. The primary objectives of EU development cooperation under the EU Lisbon treaty7 remain fighting poverty and enhancing sustainable development, particularly in the poorest countries. EU’s commitment to these objectives is essential in order to make progress towards the SDGs.
Already, EU donors’ aid is skewed towards spending in countries based on their own strategic priorities, rather than the countries’ poverty needs. One consequence of spending scarce aid resources on military and security might be reduced funding for donor-supported programmes that help people escape poverty. Meanwhile, aid that contributes to enhancing military presence may not be the most effective approach to improving people’s security. The London School of Economic states in its Berlin Report of the Human Security Study Group, “In the twenty-first century, the use of military force in places like Syria tends to exacerbate the everyday insecurity of individuals and their communities. Second generation human security is civilian-led”.
Donor attention to security in developing countries provides an opportunity to help protect people from fear or harm, while improving security for everyone; CSOs need to scrutinise aid spending on security to ensure it is used for genuine development purposes and will not divert aid away from, or undermine, fighting poverty and other development priorities. Donors need to make sure ODA spending on security provides support to partner governments and local CSOs to promote human rights, as well as accountability, to civilian populations. Without these guarantees, the integrity of aid will be diminished.
Original source: CONCORD
Published on 15 February 2018
