Europe is a major donor of aid. In European capitals, development aid is more and more considered an instrument of foreign policy, to promote national economic, commercial or strategic interests. These are all legitimate objectives for national governments, but human well-being must not be overlooked. People who lack the necessities to live fulfilling lives must be helped, even if such aid has no commercial or strategic benefit to the donors.
In 2000, the United Nations agreed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These set targets for the reduction of poverty, hunger, disease and environmental damage by 2015. The UN is holding a review summit in September 2013 to discuss how these goals should be
updated. in February the European Commission published a paper which argued in favour of combining human development and environmental protection – though it did
not propose specific targets.2The EU will need a common EU position on the MDGs. Despite Europe’s economic difficulties, therefore, development aid will be on the EU’s political agenda for the next few months.
The EU is a major donor of both short-term humanitarian aid, to help deal with conflicts or natural disasters, and longer-term development aid, to help countries
make progress economically, politically and socially. Humanitarian aid is not seriously questioned by European politicians and publics. The need for emergency relief is
very visible on television screens, and there is little debate about which countries should or should not benefit. By contrast, development aid – which accounts for over 90
per cent of global (and European) aid flows – is a highly contested subject.
This policy brief will argue that Europe is not yet giving as much aid as it has committed to give. It will then focus on development aid managed by the Commission. It will recommend that the Commission should manage a greater proportion of Europe’s total development aid,
as Commission programmes deliver economies of scale and reduced administrative costs. It will then argue that all EU policies must be made more consistent with
development objectives. The policy brief will propose that Commission aid spending priorities should be driven by human need rather than strategic or foreign policy considerations. And it will recommend that more money should go on clean energy programmes, particularly in rural areas.
Is Europe giving enough?
The term ‘EU aid’ is used in development literature
to mean both aid administered by the European
Commission and aid given directly by member-state
governments. The EU spent €53 billion on aid in 2011,
over twice as much as the second largest donor, the
United States (this figure covers both development aid
and humanitarian aid). The Commission administered
€9.6 billion, while the rest was given directly by the member-states.
However, Europe is giving less development aid than
it promised it would. In 1970, the United Nations set a
target that developed countries should give at least 0.7per cent of national income each year in aid. This target has been repeatedly reaffirmed in numerous international
meetings, notably in the discussions around the MDGs. In
2005 the EU pledged that countries that were members
before 2004 would meet the target by 2015. In 2011
total EU aid (Commission and member-states) amounted
to 0.42 per cent of GDP. Only four member-states met
the target: Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark and the
Netherlands. (The only non-EU country to exceed the
target is Norway.) Although the Uk will soon reach the
target, the Dutch are cutting development spending so
will fall below 0.7 per cent this year.
The benefits of the Commission managing aid
There are both political and practical advantages
to the Commission managing aid programmes. The
Commission is more widely regarded as a neutral
development player than are national governments,
whose commercial or historical links sometimes
dominate decisions on aid allocation. A large proportion
of Spanish aid goes to Latin America. France focuses
on the Caribbean and Francophone Africa and the Uk
on Anglophone Africa and south Asia. These parts of
the world all need development assistance. But so do
countries with which member-states have no historic
links. The Commission operates programmes in countries
which are very poor but not significant recipients of
member-state aid. One such example is Eritrea, the
world’s fifth poorest country, where the Commission has
funded agriculture and infrastructure projects.
There are also cost advantages to Commission-administered
aid. One large programme is more likely to be effective than
several small ones, so Commission management can deliver
economies of scale. It can also cut administrative costs. The
Commission has 136 delegations working on development
around the world. These reduce the need for member-states
to have their own offices. Commission management also
cuts the administrative burden on recipients: developing
country governments often complain about having to
report to large numbers of donors separately. A 2011 report
by the Italian company SOGES estimated that greater
co-ordination of European development programmes
could result in annual administrative savings to donors and recipients of €5 billion.3
Commission development aid is neither perfect nor
without problems. All aid is subject to misuse, wastage
and corruption, to some extent. Examples of failures inCommission aid programmes should be revealed and corrected, but should not be used as weapons of attack
against the Commission generally. Overall, Commission aid is well administered.
“The Commission’s good performance on aid is recognised even by parties not normally
enthusiastic about EU activity.”
The quality of Commission aid is widely recognised, by international organisations, national governments and non-governmental organisations. The OECD concluded
in 2012 that Commission programmes had improved significantly since an earlier review in 2007. Among the areas where improvement was noted, the OECD listed
better co-ordination of aid programmes, streamlined financial processes, and the fact that the Commission had begun working more closely with civil society.4
The Commission’s good performance on aid is recognised
even by parties not normally enthusiastic about EU
activity. For example, in 2011 the Uk government
published a review of multilateral aid which commended
Commission programmes for strong financial
management and transparency systems, moderate
administration costs and predictable funding. The
Commission has two large aid instruments at its disposal:
the European Development Fund for Africa, the Caribbean
and Pacific countries (EDF)5 and the Development Cooperation Instrument for Asia, the Middle East and Latin America (DCI). The British government awarded the highest possible rating to the EDF.6
The Uk government’s verdict on the DCI was less
favourable. This was described as insufficiently povertyfocused, less innovative than the EDF, too inflexible and cumbersome, and weak on the implementation of some
issues, such as the gender strategy. The OECD was also
less complimentary about the DCI than it was about the
EDF. It suggested reducing the number of budget lines
within the DCI, and increasing assessments of results.7
The agreement on the EU’s multiannual financial
framework for 2014-20 which European leaders signed on
8th February 2013 promises again that the Union will meet
the 0.7 per cent target by 2015.8The European Parliament has yet to pass this agreement. But development aid does not appear to be a contested issue. Under the agreement
the amount allocated to the EDF for the next seven years
is almost exactly the same as was allocated in the current
seven years, at just under €27 billion. The Commission
had proposed a 13 per cent increase in the EDF.
It had also proposed a 19 per cent increase for the DCI.9
The amount that will be given to the DCI has not yet
been finalised. This is part of a broader budget heading,
called ‘Global Europe’, which covers pre-accession and neighbourhood policy as well as development aid. The Council agreed on a 1.8 per cent increase in ‘Global
Europe’, to €58.7 billion. So it is very unlikely that the DCI
will receive a substantial increase from the amount in the
current multiannual financial framework.
“The contribution of Commission aid to the 0.7 per cent target will not increase
significantly. This is regrettable.”
As a result, the contribution of Commission aid to the
0.7 per cent target will not increase significantly. This
is regrettable. As mentioned above, Commission aid
delivers economies of scale and cost savings. Given
current economic circumstances, national governments
are under pressure to reduce aid spending and postpone
or ignore the 0.7 per cent commitment. Such pressure
is unavoidable, but should be kept separate from the
debate about whether development aid should go
directly from the member-states or via the Commission.
Either form of spending contributes to the national and
European 0.7 per cent target.
Commission aid and the Millenium Development Goals
In 2000, the UN agreed the Millenium Development
Goals (MDGs). These aim to:
eradicate extreme hunger and poverty;
achieve universal primary education;
promote gender equality and empower women;
reduce child mortality;
improve maternal health;
combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases;
ensure environmental sustainability; and
develop a global partnership for development.
These goals are supposed to be met by 2015, though
none will be achieved entirely. Extreme hunger and
poverty, child mortality and lack of clean water and
sanitation are too widespread to eradicate in such a
time frame. So the UN set targets to reduce rather than
eliminate these problems by 2015.
Development aid can make a contribution to meeting
the MDGs. Aid alone will never be enough to meet them:
economic growth is essential, and it is not possible
to establish whether development aid contributes to
economic growth. A 2012 report by the Uk House of Lords
select committee on economic affairs into the effectiveness
of development aid noted that “the difficulties of accurate
measurement and attribution, and of assessing what would
have happened if no aid had been given, are so formidable
that the evidence that aid makes a contribution to growth
in recipient countries is inconclusive”. This report also noted
that trade policy is more relevant to economic growth than
development aid ever will be.10
However, the MDGs are not intended only to promote
economic growth. Progress towards goals such as
universal primary education and reduced child mortality
can be achieved even if the economy is not growing, as
long as there is money available to build schools, train
teachers, and provide safe drinking water and sanitation.
Development aid can provide some of this money.
Even those who criticise development aid overall often
acknowledge that it can help meet specific goals. For
example, aid-sceptic William Easterley accepts that aid
has been effective in reducing polio and increasing
access to clean water and sanitation.11
Commission aid has helped deliver some very significant
progress towards the MDGs. This is recognised in the
OECD report mentioned above. It is also acknowledged
by non-governmental organisations working on
development, such as Concord, the European
confederation for non-governmental organisations
working on relief and development. Commission aid has
contributed to many households getting access to clean
drinking water and to electricity, many children being
enrolled in primary education, and many children being
vaccinated against measles, a major killer of children in
the developing world. This progress has been spread
across many countries. To give just two examples:
The Commission gives about 15 per cent of the
aid received by Burkina Faso. It has worked with that
government to promote health, access to water and
education. Over 99 per cent of residents are now
vaccinated against measles. Three quarters of girls attend
primary school. And over half a million people have been
provided with safe water.12
The Commission provides around 12 per cent of the
aid received by Bangladesh. Aid has enabled Bangladesh to
train and employ 35,000 new teachers, buy 60 million new
textbooks, and build new toilets and wells at schools. 13
Lack of policy coherence
The main fault with EU development policy is not the
quality of spending, or even the insufficient quantity, but
the fact that other EU policies damage poor countries.
Since 2005, the EU has aimed to make all its policies
coherent with its strategy for development. However,
some EU policies, particularly those on trade, agriculture
and fisheries, continue to harm poor countries.
Increased trade will not automatically help meet the
MDGs, since the EU will have little influence over how the
money earned by the developing country will be spent.
Nevertheless, as noted above, trade is more important
for economic growth than aid will ever be, so is a vital
component of meeting some of the MDGs.
The EU takes part in Aid for Trade, as do many other
international organisations including the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) and the UN. Aid for Trade involves
donors providing financial and technical assistance to
developing countries, especially the least developed
countries, to build up their supply-side capacity and
strengthen their trade-related infrastructure, including
roads. The WTO argues that Aid for Trade has a supportive
role to play in the realisation of the MDGs.
However, better infrastructure and capacity building
will not be sufficient. The EU should also remove tariffs
and quotas which discourage or exclude produce from
developing countries. Since 1971 Europe has operated
a Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), under which
goods from developing countries are given preferential
access to the European market. This means reduced or
zero tariffs, and higher or no quotas. In October 2012
the EU adopted a revised GSP, which will operate from
the start of 2014. Countries which have achieved high
or upper middle income, per capita, will no longer be
beneficiaries. So most of Latin America will be excluded,
as will Malaysia and South Africa. China and India will continue to be GSP beneficiaries, although some of the produce from both countries is excluded for specific reasons to do with product quality.
“Some EU policies, particularly those on trade, agriculture and fisheries, continue to
harm poor countries.”
Countries which have free trade agreements with the EU,
such as South Africa, will not be harmed by loss of GSP
treatment. But other middle income countries will. The
tariffs for imports from countries without most favoured
nation status are high – for example, an average of 54 per
cent for milk and 34 per cent for grains.
The Commission’s desire to focus on the least developed
countries is understandable. removing tariffs and quotas for
all developing countries could impact negatively on the least
developed, since Europe would import more from middle
income countries. But there are many poor people in middle
income countries, who would benefit from greater earnings.
And if the removal of tariffs and quotas was combined with
a reduction in European agricultural subsidies, Europe would
import more, so the least developed countries would not
necessarily lose out. The EU would lose some income from
tariffs, but this would be much less than the money saved by
cutting agricultural subsidies.
Since subsidies to European farmers enable them to
undercut farmers from elsewhere, the EU should reduce
payments to European farmers by much more than the
11 per cent cut agreed by the Council in February. As
Christopher Haskins argued in a previous CEr policy
brief, single farm payments should be phased out, and
more money spent on rural development, particularly
in newer member-states.14 Environmental protectionshould be achieved through regulation rather than financial incentives. Lower agricultural subsidies would
reduce production in Europe. This could lead to increased
agricultural imports from developing countries, and higher income for these countries.15
Europe’s fisheries policies also undermine some of
the goals of its development policy. The Commission
subsidises fishing boat modernisation under the
structural funds. Some member-states (notably Spain)
also subsidise the fishing sector. EU fishing fleets have
increased activity off developing countries in recent years,
partly because there are fewer fish to catch in European
waters. Around a quarter of all fish caught by EUregistered boats come from developing country waters.
This raises the price of fish for the local inhabitants, and reduces employment. Developing country governments often sign fishing agreements with the EU, for which
they get paid. But even when they cancel agreements,
as Senegal did in 2006, illegal European trawlers still fish
their waters. Member-states need to become more active
at preventing such law-breaking. And the EU should cut
subsidies to the European fishing fleet.
The EU’s ambitious plans to expand renewable energy,
to 20 per cent of all energy by 2020, are also not fully
coherent with its development policies. Increased
demand for energy from crops leads to ‘land grabs’ in
which companies buy large areas of arable land in the
developing world. This reduces the land available to grow
food, and will lead to further deforestation. To prevent
this, crops grown on land that has been used to grow
food in the last two decades should not count towards
renewable energy targets.16
Where should Commission aid go?
Commission development aid should be used primarily for
maintaining progress towards the MDGs, not for strategic or
foreign policy reasons. The European External Action Service
must be involved in development aid decisions, since aid is
a powerful means of extending the EU’s ‘soft power’. But the
decisions should continue to be taken by the Commission
itself. The main driver of allocation decisions should be
human need rather than foreign policy objectives. Some
development aid can be justified on strategic grounds, such
as the wish to avoid more failed states. However, some of
the world’s existing failed states, including Somalia and
the Democratic republic of Congo, have been major aid
recipients. So aid cannot be guaranteed to avoid state failure.
Aid can, however, be guaranteed to meet some basic human
needs, as long as it is well administered.
Bangladesh is a strong example of a country that requires aid
for reasons of human need. This country is not widely seen
as a strategic priority, though many observers have concerns
about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism there. Bangladesh
is not well endowed with natural resources, though it has
some gas and coal. Yet the human development case for
aid to Bangladesh is strong. Bangladesh is a low-lying,
densely populated country. Seven hundred kilometres of its
coastline were washed away by cyclones in 2007 and 2009,
and have not yet been reconstructed. Increases in extreme
weather due to climate change will present great threats to
Bangladesh, as will rising sea levels.
The Commission’s new development policies, the ‘Agenda
for Change’ published in October 2011, and agreed by
the Council in May 2012, move in the right direction. The
new approach will target countries that are in the greatest
need of external support, including fragile states. It will focus on human rights, democracy and other elements of governance. Priority areas will include health, education,
sustainable agriculture and energy.17 The Commission
also proposed that 17 middle-income countries, including
China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico and
Argentina, should cease to receive significant quantities of EU aid from 2014.
“The main driver of allocation decisions should be human need rather than foreign
policy objectives.”
Much development aid should continue to go to subSaharan Africa. This part of the world already has several failed states, including Somalia and the Democratic
republic of Congo. Failed states provide a haven for
terrorists and thus pose a risk to Europe. So a strategic case
can be made for assistance to some parts of sub-Saharan
Africa. But even if it could not, there is a strong moral
case. Over 400 million Africans – more than half the total
population – live on less than $1.25 a day, which the United
Nations defines as living below the poverty line. Three
hundred million Africans – a third of the total population –
do not have access to clean water and sound sanitation.
There is not much doubt that aid should go to poor
people in poor countries. Less clear is whether it should
go to poor people in middle income countries. Threequarters of the world’s poor live in such countries. The
MDGs will not be met if these people are not helped
out of poverty. But, one might argue, middle income
countries should deal with their own problems. Aid to India presents a stark example of this dilemma. India is
a middle income country and an emerging economic
and political power. It has nuclear weapons and a space
programme. So the Indian state is not without money. Yet
many millions of Indians still live in poverty.18
India and other middle income countries no longer
need as much development aid as they have been
receiving. The Commission’s intention to cut significant
amounts of aid from 17 of them is sensible and should
be implemented. However, the MDGs will be missed by
wide margins if the developed world stops all aid to poor
people in middle income countries. The governments of
these countries would not be able to meet all the MDGs
for their populations even if they wished to. So poor people in middle income countries should continue to
benefit from some EU development aid.
Such aid should not, however, be given to the developing
country’s central government as budget support. This
approach would be impossible to justify to European
publics. All development aid to middle income countries
should go to specific programmes aimed at the very poor.
The Commission should work with local and regional
governments, particularly to deliver decentralised
renewable energy, to help achieve the MDGs. For
example, in India it should work with the governments of
poor states such as rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa and
West Bengal, instead of the national government in Delhi.
Climate aid
Climate change poses a major threat to developing
countries and their inhabitants. This is particularly true
of sub-Saharan Africa, although Africans have done
virtually nothing to cause climate change. Nobel peace
prize winner Wangari Maathai writes that “shifting
rainfall patterns, partly as a result of global climate
change, directly threaten the livelihoods of the majority
of Africans who still rely on the land for their basic
needs”.19 Climate change will also cause the expansion
of the Sahara and kalahari deserts and the spread of
malaria to highland parts of Ethiopia, kenya, rwanda
and Burundi.
The moral case for developed countries to fund
programmes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
(referred to in climate policy discussions as
‘mitigation’) and to help developing countries deal
with the now-unavoidable consequences of climate
change (‘adaptation’) is clear. Europe, North America
and Australasia became developed by burning
fossil fuels. So most of the greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere are the historic responsibility of these
countries. China is now the world’s largest emitter
of total greenhouse gases each year. But China’s
contribution to historic emissions remains below 10
per cent, whereas the USA and Europe are responsible
for over a quarter each. Low-carbon energy sources
are available, but not yet as cheap as fossil fuels. So, if
developing countries are to choose low-carbon rather
than high-carbon energy, they will require financial
assistance. Some of the money for coping with the
consequences of extreme weather will be emergency
humanitarian aid, but some of it should also be longerterm development aid. For example, tropical countries
should be helped to use drought-resistant crops more
widely, even when these are more expensive than
conventional crops or water management.
Developing countries would prefer more of the money to be spent on adaptation measures, since the need
to deal with extreme weather has greater urgency
than the need to develop clean energy. However,
the Commission should continue to give priority to
mitigation programmes. In particular, it should support
rural renewable energy projects. Such projects will help
protect the global climate. They will also provide real
assistance to rural populations in many developing
countries. renewable energy technologies are well
suited to provide decentralised energy, so reducing
the need for electricity or gas grids. For example,
solar photovoltaic panels combined with batteries
can provide light for villagers each night. This enables
children who have to work during the day to learn
in the evening. Access to electricity also enables
households to set up small businesses. An anaerobic
digester can convert manure and sewage into
renewable gas plus fertiliser. The gas can then be used
in the village for cooking and heating. Development aid
for energy will contribute to better livelihoods, better
economic prospects and greater human security.
A top priority for Commission aid should therefore be
to provide renewable energy for rural populations. This
would place the EU at the forefront of UN SecretaryGeneral Ban ki-moon’s 2011 ‘Sustainable energy for
all’ initiative. EU development commissioner Andris
Piebalgs is well placed to implement this approach: he
was previously energy commissioner. And the EU has
successful experience in rural renewable projects.
The EU has supported the use of solar panels in Msamala,
a rural district of Malawi. This has led to a reduction
of a third of firewood burnt (reducing carbon dioxide
emissions) by women and children, and increased
learning hours for almost 9,000 students. The revenue of
34 companies has also increased because new activities,
including bee-keeping and mushroom growing, have become possible.20 Support for rural renewable energy
would also play to one of the Commission’s strengths –
the ability to work with regional and local governments in
developing countries. Other international development
organisations, such as the World Bank and the UN, do
very little of this – partly for legal reasons (they are only
permitted to do so if the central government agree) and
partly due to their institutional cultures. A focus on rural
energy would enable the EU to continue to assist poor
people in middle income countries.
The Commission could also focus on villages, building
on the experience of the ‘millennium village’ project.
This project, launched in 2006, involved 80 villages in
ten African countries. It aimed to improve agriculture,
nutrition, health, water and sanitation, infrastructure
and the environment, at a cost of $120 (€91) per person.
The impact of a village being selected as a millennium
village is hard to measure, since no baseline villages
without such intervention were selected as benchmarks.
(It would be hard to justify selecting such benchmarks,
since this would require the villages to be deprived
of all meaningful assistance simply for the purpose
of assessment.) Nevertheless, the millennium village
approach appears to have led to good progress. A 2008
review by the Overseas Development Institute found that
crop yields, labour productivity and school enrolment had
improved, and the risk of disease reduced.21 Inhabitants
of millennium villages are encouraged to participate
in development projects, so the approach fits with the
EU’s intention to strengthen civil society. The EU should
therefore use the millennium village approach, extending
the focus of activity to include renewable energy.
Conclusion
At a time of economic austerity throughout Europe it
is tempting to think that charity should begin at home,
and that development assistance is a luxury we cannot
afford. There are moral reasons to reject that argument
and say that after 45 years it is time that the EU met the
target of spending 0.7 per cent of national income on
development aid.
There are also practical reasons. Even when it does
not support foreign policy or strategic ends directly,
development aid can be in the interests of the EU, as well
as the recipients. Helping countries to progress towards
the MDGs results in more educated and prosperous
populations, more likely and able to purchase goods
and services from the EU, and less likely to contribute
to problems like environmental degradation or
uncontrolled migration.
Whether the EU collectively spends more or less on
development assistance in future, it makes sense to spend
it efficiently. That means letting the Commission manage
more of it. It also means ending the situation in which
the EU spends money in one area, for example fisheries,
which means that the money it spends in another, namely
development assistance, goes partly to waste.
The Commission must continue to improve its
administration of development aid. It should administer
aid to Asia, the Middle East and Latin America in the way
it now administers aid to Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific
countries. It should implement its Agenda for Change.
And it should give greater priority to clean energy in
developing countries, including middle income countries.
Especially in times of austerity, Europe must emphasize
efficiency in the way it uses development aid. The
Commission ought therefore to manage more of the total
given by Europe.
Not all European aid should go through the Commission.
Member-state governments have legitimate national
objectives. But member-state governments should not
continue to manage 80 per cent of European aid. The
proportion of aid administered by the Commission could
be doubled without impinging on national governments’
ability to pursue their foreign policy objectives.
NOTES:
1: European Commission, ‘European report on development 2011/2012’,
2012.
2: European Commission, ‘A decent life for all: Ending poverty and giving
the world a sustainable future’, February 2013.
3: SOGES, ‘The aid effectiveness agenda: The benefits of going ahead’,
2011.
4: OECD, ‘European Union: Development assistance committee peer
review’, 2012.
5: The EDF is based on the Cotonou agreement signed in 2000. The
Cotonou agreement will be revised in 2015 and is due to end in 2020.
Since it is based on this agreement, the EDF is technically outside the
EU budget. However, most of it is administered by the Commission.
A small proportion, the investment fund, is administered by the European Investment Bank.
6: Uk Department for International Development, ‘Multilateral aid review’, 2011.
7: OECD, ‘European Union: Development assistance committee peer review’, 2012.
8: European Council, ‘Conclusions: Multiannual financial framework’, February 8th 2013.
9: European Commission, ‘The multiannual financial framework: The
proposals on external action instruments’, December 7th 2011.
10: House of Lords select committee on economic affairs, ‘The economic
impact and effectiveness of development aid’, March 2012.
11: William Easterly, ‘The white man’s burden: Why the West’s efforts
to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good’, Oxford University Press, 2006.
12: OECD, ‘European Union: Development assistance committee peer review’, 2012.
13: European Commission, ‘2012 annual report on the European
Union’s development and external assistance policies and their implementation in 2011’, 2012.
14: Christopher Haskins, ‘A chance for further CAP reform’, CEr policy brief, February 2011.
15: Nicola Cantore, Sheila Page and Dirk Willem te Velde, ‘Making the
EU’s common agricultural policy coherent with development goals’
Overseas Development Institute, September 2011.
16: Stephen Tindale, ‘How to expand renewable energy after 2020’, CErpolicy brief, December 2012.
17: European Commission, ‘Increasing the impact of EU development policy: An agenda for change’, October 2011.
18: Turkey is another middle income country that receives aid from the
EU. But much of the money Turkey gets is to prepare it for eventual
(though uncertain) EU membership, not to reduce poverty.
19: Wangari Maathai, ‘The challenge of Africa’, knopf Doubleday, 2009.
20: European Commission, ‘2012 annual report on the European
Union’s development and external assistance policies and their
implementation in 2011’, 2012.
21: Overseas Development Institute, ‘Millenium village project review’, 2008.
BY Stephen Tindale
associate fellow, Centre for european reform
Sourche: http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2013/pbrief_sct_development_14june13-7556.pdf
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου