The Reality of Aid 2011 by Welthungerhilfe

19th report 2011

The Reality of Aid 2011

A critical assessment of German development policy

What is really effective? The debate on the development results of German policies

ry a m m Su

Preface This year Deutsche Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes Germany are publishing their nineteenth report on “The Reality of Aid”. This annual report has been released since 1993 and is understood to be an instrument of critical analysis of the German Federal Government’s development policy. The report is perceived as an OECD-DAC shadow report on the officially declared German development policy. It outlines the quantitative and qualitative aspects of German official development assistance against the backdrop of the German Federal Government’s policy aspirations and objectives and also integrates the international scope of German development policy. In the light of the approaching 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (4th HLF) - due to take place in Busan, Korea, from 29th November to 1st December 2011 - this year’s report focusses on the debate on the effectiveness of German development aid policy. It assesses Germany’s progress in implementing the Accra Agenda for Action, pinpoints current challenges and focuses on German development aid policies, analysing areas of conflict associated within them. Both Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes strongly emphasise the need for Germany to develop a coherent policy towards the Global South. In their conclusions and political recommendations, they also pinpoint development policy deficits, thus identifying requirements for a change in perspective within development policy, and suggest, as a basis for further discussion, ideas on the development of new models and indicators of prosperity and social progress beyond the current one-sided growth orientation.

Bonn / Osnabruck, October 2011

Danuta Sacher Executive Director terre des hommes Germany

Dr. Wolfgang Jamann Secretary General Chairman of Welthungerhilfe

The current English summary contains the highlights of this year’s German report at a glance, as well as the conclusions and political recommendations of terre des hommes and Welthungerhilfe.

Highlights

The Reality of Aid 2011

At a glance

Conditions that frame German development the BMZ has reduced its number of official partner aid policy undergo fundamental change. In No- countries to 57, and plans to further cut back to vember 2011, the German Federal Ministry for 50; but in reality, German DC funds were being Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) channelled into projects in at least 140 different will be celebrating its 50th anniversary. This an- countries in 2008. However, there is a danger that niversary comes at a time when North / South re- in withdrawing from certain partner countries, lationships are fundamentally changing. In the and thus reducing the DC funding, various MDGs light of shifting global economic and political - particularly within the health sector - would not be achieved unless the shortfall could be met power structures - particularly manifest in the increasing significance of China - it appears that from local funds, or compensated for by increased to divide the world into two distinct sections of ODA or by other donors. ‘industrialised countries’ and ‘developing countries’, or into the ‘rich North’ and the ‘poor South’, l Above-average aid tying in German DC. In is becoming increasingly anachronistic. China is 2009, the proportion of Germany’s bilateral ODA now investing billions in crisis-afflicted Greece; which was tied to delivering set goods and servBrazil in 2011 owns more US government bonds ices reached 27%, and was thus far higher than than Germany and Switzerland combined. And the average of Western donor nations. Moreover, this global economic and political upheaval has 51% of Germany’s bilateral technical cooperation also put concepts and strategies behind tradition- (TC) was tied - more than in any other OECD doal development aid policies on the spot. nor country. This problem could grow even more acute through the BMZ’s closer cooperation with l Before the Busan forum: spotlight on the efprivate business. Wherever DC funds have been fectiveness of German development coopera- awarded specifically to German or European businesses, i.e., within the framework of a PPP project, tion (DC). The German Federal Government has committed itself explicitly to increasing the ef- the aid has - de facto - been tied. ficiency of German DC, and to implementing the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Ac- l German development aid policies increasingtion to this purpose. However, the BMZ’s current ly results-oriented. The BMZ has announced that policy - aimed at shifting DC from a multilateral its concept of results-based financing for develto a bilateral level, reducing budget support and opment will give it a ‘radical change of course’. intensifying project cooperation with German Initially, there will be a test phase with a number businesses - may lead to an additional increase of pilot projects. There is a deal of sense in this, in the number of bilateral projects, and is thus as a wrong definition of ‘results orientation’ could in danger of falling back into ‘projectivitis'. This prove to be problematic in a number of ways. It would be inconsistent with the spirit of the Paris would undermine the democratic ownership of Declaration. partners if civil society and parliaments are not involved in defining results; agreeing upon spel Division of labour among donors: hardly imcific results would increase the ’ex-post condiplemented to date, and not without risks. The tionality’ for the affected countries; a substantial German Federal Government actively advocates a effort for reporting and administration can arise when monitoring success; and the trend towards better division of labour amongst donor nations in the recipient countries. Each EU member state simple, easily controllable projects would increase, whereas longer-term, structural measures - such within their bilateral DC should concentrate on a maximum of three sectors in any given coun- as those to promote democracy - might fall by the wayside. All in all, there is a danger of passing the try. At the same time, the number of cooperation countries should be reduced. In practice, however, buck for effectiveness - and thus also the risk of there has been virtually no reduction to date. True, the project failure - wholly to the governments of l

the partner countries. Within the reorientation of development aid policies towards results-based financing these risks and side-effects need to be taken into account. High and starkly fluctuating food prices aggravate hunger problems. Global food prices soared to an all-time high in 2011. Besides climate-related crop failures and the increased use of arable land for growing bio fuels, the rise in prices is increasingly attributable to speculation on the commodity market. Chaired this year by France, the G20 has placed this issue high on their agenda. In June 2011, the G20 ministers of agriculture passed an “Action Plan on Food Price Volatility and Agriculture“. This action plan, however, does not scale up to the magnitude of the global food crisis. Current dramatics of this global food crisis can be seen once again in East Africa. Primarily in Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti, people are suffering the worst famine for sixty years. More than 12 million people are suffering from acute starvation.

Unsolved global risks – insufficient answers from the BMZ.The unsolved risks connected with instable financial markets, global food insecurity and impending global warming have made clear the limitations of current models for development and prosperity, based primarily on economic growth and market forces for finding problem solutions, while at the same time not fully appreciating equity issues, environmental problems and human rights risks. In the preparatory phase for the UN’s ‘Rio+20’ conference for sustainable development, this has led to an increased debate on alternative models of well-being and development strategies. During the last 12 months, the BMZ has reacted to these challenges by formulating new strategies and position papers on important subjects such as human rights, education and rural development. The intention was to bundle these into the BMZ’s overall development policy concept. However, this has not been achieved. The new concept remains vague, and offers inadequate responses to the global challenges.

Insufficient increase in world-wide ODA – cutbacks in BMZ budget adjourned. In 2010, the official development aid supplied by the 23 western donor countries reached an all-time high of 128.7 million US dollars. Nonetheless, the ODA quota in other words, the proportion of ODA to the gross national income (GNI) of these countries rose by

a mere 0.01% in comparison to the previous year, to total just 0.32%. German ODA increased in 2010 by almost a billion Euros, from 8.67 to 9.61 billion Euros. After plummeting in the previous year, German ODA has thus once again reached the 2008 level. In absolute terms - calculated as the total amount of ODA services - German ODA has fallen back to 4th position, following the USA, Great Britain and France. In the year of the BMZ’s 50th anniversary, Germany’s ODA - in proportion to its economic strength - is lower than in the year the BMZ was founded, now totalling 0.38% compared to 0.45% in 1961. Instead of increasing the BMZ’s budget, the German Federal Government is currently planning further cutbacks totalling 368.8 million Euros by 2015, as compared to 2011. Only a coherent policy approach can have lasting positive development effects. The BMZ rightly states that any debate on aid effectiveness will remain ineffective unless there is coherence and consistency with other policies. This is because, in effect, virtually all policies affect development either directly or indirectly. Whether a government’s policies have a positive or negative impact on the lives of people in the countries of the South depends largely on the trade and investment policies of that government, on measures taken against capital flight to tax havens, on the government’s attitude to commodity market speculation, and on their contribution to global climate protection. Hence, in the interest of sustainable development, the German Federal Government needs to draw up a strategy to realize policy coherence that is binding for all ministries. This strategy must be based on the human rightsbased approach to sustainable development. l

The Reality of Aid 2011

Conclusions and political recommendations

In the light of the approaching 4th HLF on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, the focus of this report is on the effectiveness of DC - particularly seen within the framework of consistent and coherent policies towards the Global South . Viewed against the backdrop of developments in 2011, this is particularly relevant – these developments having shown just how much the international parameters for development aid policies have changed – and are still changing. The global economic and financial crisis, which many people prematurely declared to be over, has ‘returned’ to Europe as a crisis of the Euro. This is proving to be a burden on global financial markets, and has increased the level of pressure on national budgets – which, it is to be feared, will have a negative impact on the countries of the Global South. Because the G20 governments have failed to date to agree upon effective regulations to combat the growing problem of tax evasion in secrecy jurisdictions, the countries in the Global South are losing more income every year than they receive in ODA. Budget authorities just don’t have the funds urgently needed to promote human rights effectively, or consolidate health and education systems, or to invest in public infrastructures and strengthen democratic administrative structures. Nor have the G20 governments succeeded to date in taking any effective measures to combat unfettered speculation on the stock markets. Speculation on commodity markets continues to result in dramatic fluctuations in food prices, and is hence responsible in part for hunger catastrophes in many parts of the world, such as recently at the Horn of Africa. This food crisis has been caused by a fatal combination of factors including high food prices, internal conflicts, climate-related droughts and the failure of the international community to respond quickly to the warning signals of a pending disaster.

To date, the increasingly pressing warnings given by scientists about the dramatic consequences of global climate change, and their urgent plea for a paradigmatic transformation of the current economic and consumerist models (as recently formulated in the 2011 flagship report by the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), entitled ‘World in Transition – A Social Contract for Sustainability’) have not succeeded in overcoming the blockades in international climate negotiations. The unsolved risks connected with instable financial markets, global food insecurity and impending global warming have - not for the first time, but all the more urgently - made clear the limitations of a model for development and prosperity, based primarily on economic growth and market forces for finding problem solutions, while at the same time not fully appreciating equity issues, environmental problems and human rights risks. In the preparatory phase for the UN’s ‘Rio+20’ conference for sustainable development, this has led to an increased debate on alternative models of well-being and development strategies. Inevitably, this has consequences for the future role and conceptualisation of development policy. During the last 12 months, the BMZ has reacted to these challenges by formulating new strategies and position papers on important subjects such as human rights, education and rural development. The intention was to bundle these into the BMZ’s overall development policy concept. However, this has not been achieved. The new concept remains vague, and offers inadequate responses to the global challenges. Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes nonetheless welcome the BMZ’s openness to debate - as long as such debate is not an act of symbolic politics, but actually moves the BMZ to pick up on suggestions made by civil society for more depth and farsightedness in an extended version of the new BMZ concept. The development policy objectives cannot be viewed separately from the quantity of ODA as far as realistic implementation is concerned. In this

respect, one cause of deep concern is that Germany is still so far from meeting its ODA obligations. Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes regret that the BMZ management did not even take up on the development policy consensus agreed upon by a cross-party majority in the German Bundestag to reach the 0.7% target. To react to global challenges in an effective and authentic manner, German development policy must align both its strategies and the scope of its financial cooperation to the global needs. In the 4th HLF on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, qualitative aspects of DC are in the spotlight of the development policy debates. Whilst it makes excellent sense to increase the effectiveness of development policy projects and programmes, limiting efforts to this alone would fall short of the mark. Nor will the proposal to proclaim a Global Partnership for Development Effectiveness at Busan suffice, if such a proposal is limited to the actors of traditional DC. Instead - and in line with the principle of ‘policy coherence for development‘ - the impact of all policy areas on development needs to be examined on an on-going basis, and these policies brought into line accordingly with the vision of a ecologically sustainable and socially equitable development. In order for German DC to be truly effective in this respect, and in order for its impact not to be counteracted by policies made in other departments, terre des hommes and the Welthungerhilfe deem the following ten points to be essential:

1. More money for the South: increase country programmable aid Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes have repeatedly emphasised that increasing the ODA figures is a necessary, but by no means adequate, prerequisite for ensuring that the additional DC funds actually reach the people in the partner countries. To achieve this, so-called country programmable aid (CPA) - i.e., DC funds which partner countries can directly tap into for their own local development programmes - must be increased in real terms. We welcome the fact that Germany has increased the proportion and scope of such CPA over the last years. However, in 2009, it still totalled only 56% of German ODA. A further increase is thus essential. At the same time, measures must be

taken to ensure that CPA is implemented transparently, effectively, on the basis of democratic ownership, and comprehensively involving the affected population.

>>>

The German Federal Government should further increase the proportion and scope of country programmable DC funds. This is an essential prerequisite for ensuring that the governments in partner countries are actually able to use these funds for the operation of their development programmes. This must not, however, be at the cost of supporting civil society organisations or at the expense of promoting and raising awareness for development policy within Germany. The latter should be further expanded in order to approach the BMZ’s own target of anchoring development policy in the heart of society.

2. Increase ownership – prevent fall back into ‘projectivitis’ Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes support the basic targets of the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action, to overcome the high level of heteronomy and lack of ownership of those affected by projects and programmes run by donor governments. Equally, partner countries should no longer be overwhelmed by duplicate structures and fragmented project financing of public entities. Even before the change of government in 2009, the number of German DC projects - 9000 in 2008 - was disproportionately higher than in comparable donor nations such as France and Britain. The BMZ’s current policies - aimed at shifting DC from a multilateral to a bilateral level, reducing budget support and intensifying project cooperation with German businesses - may lead to an additional increase in the number of bilateral projects. This would be inconsistent with the spirit of the Paris Declaration.

>>>

Wherever possible, the German Federal Government should increase forms of programme-based financing. It should prevent a fallback into ‘projectivitis’, i.e. individual projects instead of comprehensive pro>>>

The Reality of Aid 2011

>>> grammes, which would be damaging to the partner countries, and expand its political and financial involvement in multilateral cooperation instead. Civil society and actors in the Global South should be actively involved in the process of drawing up a strategy for multilateral DC. The German Federal Government and the German Bundestag should finally abandon their rigid and unfounded regulation of limiting the proportion of multilateral DC to overall German support to one third. The point here is not to insist that one way is better than another; one basic prerequisite for effective development policy are flexible cooperation instruments, without rigid funding limits. Seen in this light, there is no reason for the rigid 30:70 divide, nor any evidence to support it. However, the German Federal Government should hereby take care that with the forms of programme-based financing as well as with multilateral DC minimum standards with regard to transparency, democratic involvement of civil society and parliaments, and independent control of financing are met. These are basic prerequisites to ensure the effectiveness of financing.

3. Eliminate tied aid In the Paris Declaration, the governments principally agreed reducing aid tying is a necessary prerequisite for increasing the effectiveness of DC. In this light, it is problematic that 27% of Germany’s bilateral ODA in 2009 was still tied aid. Germany is way above the DAC donor country average. And for tied technical cooperation, Germany - with 51% - is right at the top of the scale. In their last report, Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes warned that this problem will become more acute through the increased BMZ cooperation with private business. This is further reinforced by the concentration and dominant market position of German technical cooperation through the GIZ’s conception of the “Global market leader in international technical cooperation”: restricting PPP funds and TC allocation to German and European businesses means that aid is, de facto, tied. In this context, TC still poses a major problem, not least due to the existing institutional structure of DC in Germany.

>>>

The German Federal Government should take active measures to reduce tied DC funding on a continuous basis, as stipulated in the Paris Declaration. DC must not be abused as an instrument for promoting foreign trade. Any form of concealed aid tying - such as financial assistance from the ODA budget to support German businesses to win contracts from developing countries must thus be rejected.

4. Increase the reliability and transparency of DC Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes regard long-term DC commitments to partner countries as a key requirement for a serious, medium-term financial planning in these countries. It is considerably harder for the governments in partner countries to plan long-term when the customary maximum financing commitment offered by the BMZ is limited to three years. The fact that many countries still only receive one-year pledges is particularly problematic. Of the 33 countries included in the 2012 planning framework, only two will receive three-year pledges. Improvements could also be made to the transparency of the flow of DC financing. In the non-governmental initiative Publish What You Fund Germany only ranks somewhere in the middle.

>>>

To increase the reliability of planning in partner countries, the German Federal Government should generally extend the lengths of DC commitments. It should concentrate on investigating longer-term forms of support, such as the six year MDG contracts already practiced at EU level. To prevent unnecessary fluctuations in the amount of money being channelled to individual partner countries, the German Federal Government should also systematically work towards better coordination with other donor countries. It should increase the transparency and actuality of German ODA figures, making these available not only to the governments and parliaments in partner countries, but also to civil society, and should also work on an international level towards simplifying the definition of ODA (in>>>

>>> volving countries of the Global South in this process). Any attempt to redefine ODA through merely juggling of accounts - but without a single extra Euro actually reaching partner countries - must be staunchly rejected.

5. Avoid the negative effects of resultsbased development financing Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes support the underlying logic of results-based financing, whereby DC funds should flow primarily into verifiably successful programmes. However, a wrong definition of ‘results orientation’ could prove to be problematic in a number of ways. It would undermine the democratic ownership of partners if civil society and parliaments are not involved in defining results; agreeing upon specific results would increase the ’ex-post conditionality’ for the affected countries - often on top of existing IWF or world bank conditions; a substantial effort for reporting and administration can arise when monitoring success; and the trend towards simple, easily controllable projects would increase, whereas longer-term, structural measures - such as those to promote democracy - might fall by the wayside. All in all, there is a danger of passing the buck for effectiveness - and thus also the risk of the project failure - wholly to the governments of the partner countries and disregard the responsibility of the donors as well as international influences.

>>>

If the German Federal Government reorients its development aid policy, supplying results-based financing, it must take possible risks and negative side-effects into account. It should ensure that such an undertaking be monitored and evaluated by an independent body, involving also civil society. Development risk should not be borne solely by the partner countries, which are also not always in a position to advance funds. "Cash on delivery" should be implemented as a complementary approach, and not as an alternative to traditional approaches. In addition, the definition of ‘managing for results’ should not be restricted to ‘results-based financing’, as this would contradict the concept of partnership as anchored, for example, in the Accra Agenda for Action.

6. Support the concept of a coherence index Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes are convinced that the ‘development friendliness’ of the German government cannot be measured solely by the proportion of ODA to Gross National Income (GNI). Whether German policies have a positive or negative impact on countries in the Global South depends largely on whether they respect, protect and guarantee international human rights; on which trade, investment and agricultural policies they support on EU level; on what they are doing to combat capital flight to tax havens; on whether they combat commodity market speculation in the context of G20; and on how much they contribute to climate protection. To measure the overall ‘development friendliness’ of the policies of a given government, new indicators and measurements for development policy coherence are needed, above and beyond ODA quotas. ‘ODA-plus concepts‘, which merely add up mechanically the public and private flows of financing to countries in the Global South, without taking the quality and effect of such funding into account, would be a step in the wrong direction.

>>>

Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes appeal to civil society organisations, academic institutions and the German Federal Government to actively involve themselves in the discussion on global development goals and new measurements and indicators for the ‘development friendliness’ of a country. The aim could be to compile a development policy coherence index for politics. The Commitment to Development Index by the Center for Global Development in Washington could serve as a starting point; however, it has a number of flaws which would need to be overcome, such as its input orientation, or the restriction to seven selected policy fields, all of which are assessed equally. The German Federal Government should actively support the independent compilation of a possible coherence index.

The Reality of Aid 2011

7. Making sustainability the focus of development policy To overcome the problems of climate change, global poverty and increasing social inequality, it is essential to turn away from the one-sided growth orientation and develop new models and indicators for prosperity and social progress. This must also be reflected in German development policy. The BMZ’s overall development policy concept, however, does not live up to its own aspiration for a strategic re-orientation of German development policy. Its plea to anchor development policy in the heart of society is to be welcomed. However, the concept does not offer any solutions to the global economic, financial or environmental challenges, nor to the interdependence of global problems. Above all, it does not contain any clear statements on the significance of rural development or regional trade. All in all, there is an over-emphasis on the role of the market and individual use of opportunities to the detriment of emphasising the significance of social skills and political responsibility in solving or avoiding problems. Buzz words in the BMZ concept, such as ‘growth’ and ‘innovation’, are not values in themselves. They must be subordinate to a vision of sustainable development based on human rights.

>>>

The German Federal Government should take the United Nation‘s Earth Summit 2012 on sustainability in Rio as an opportunity to systematically rework its entire policy - including its new development policy concept founded on a sustainable development mission statement based on human rights. In this connection, it should also - at the UN level actively promote the compilation of alternative measurements and indicators for prosperity and social progress, and the formulating of ‘Global Sustainability Goals’ as an elaboration of the MDGs framework. Rather than trusting primarily on the innovative powers of markets, the German Federal Government should emphasise in its overall development policy concept the significance of the state’s regulatory role and of functioning public institutions.

>>> Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes explicitly welcome the setting up of the Enquete Commission “Growth, Prosperity, Quality of Life” in the German Bundestag. An integral part of the Commission’s work will include development policy aspects, the rights of future generations and social concerns in the Global South. In times of globalisation, discussions on prosperity or the quality of life cannot be restricted to national borders, nor solely to the interests of the present generation.

8. Human rights MOT test for all German politics Generally speaking, the BMZ’s new concept on human rights in German development policy is an important step in the right direction. By declaring human rights to be the binding guiding principle, the BMZ has met the UN call to mandatorily take human rights into account in all development policy measures. However, the new concept avoids siding unequivocally with human rights in case of conflicts over outcomes with other policy areas, such as trade, agriculture, economic or security policies. When asked how such conflicting objectives can be resolved in the interest of human rights, the concept offers no answers.

>>>

The BMZ announcement to subject all future DC proposals to a “human rights MOT test” is basically to be welcomed. However, the German Federal Government should not limit such an instrument to development policy alone, but implement it in all policy areas. It is crucial to involve human rights organisations in compiling tangible criteria and processes for such a human rights MOT test, thus ensuring their institutional independence. The idea of a complaint mechanism connected to it is a positive one, and should be put into practice as quickly as possible. The Ministry of Transport test (MOT test) is an bi-annual test of automobile safety and exhaust emissions required for most vehicles over three years in Germany.

>>>

9. Ensure policy coherence really to serve sustainable development Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes agree with the observation made by the DAC Peer Review 2010 that the German Federal Government still has a considerable leeway in order to anchor development policy objectives in other policy departments. Hence, we explicitly support the DAC Peer Review recommendation to formulate a declaration of principles for development policy coherence as well as to devise a coherence agenda with clear priorities, containing strategic, supra-departmental targets and steps for implementation. As yet, such a coherence strategy is lacking.

>>>

The German Federal Government should adopt without further delay a strategy, binding for all departments, to realise the principle of policy coherence for sustainable development. Again, such a strategy needs to be embedded in a vision of sustainable development based on human rights. The BMZ’s mandate should be extended in order to implement and monitor a supra-departmental coherence and effectiveness agenda. The existing “Ressortkreis Internationale Zusammenarbeit” (Coordination Group on International Cooperation) should be upgraded and further developed under BMZ leadership. On EU level, the German Federal Government should support the proposal made by the European Parliament for a “rapporteur for policy coherence for development”. At the same time, the German Federal Government should make an active plea at the Rio+20 conference to create the institutional basis for “ombudsperson for future generations” - both at the national level and at UN level, thereby reinforcing the rights of future generations to equal development opportunities and to an unimpaired natural resource base.

10. Take ODA commitments seriously – adopt a plan of action For years, Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes have been calling upon the German Federal Government to fulfil their ODA commitments in line with EU ODA targets, and to compile a national

plan of action for this purpose. This should provide details on how the German Federal Government intends to increase its ODA by at least 2 billion Euros per year, the increase needed in order to achieve the 0.7% target by 2015. Similar demands have been voiced by the European Commission and by the Chairman of the OECD Development Assistance Committee, Brian Atwood. Atwood further calls for a codex to ensure that ODA pledges are more than mere lip service, but that these are backed up by concrete plans of implementation. Up to now, the German Federal Government has refused to tie itself down to a national ODA plan of action. Instead, the discrepancy between their affirmation to achieve the 0.7% target by 2015, and medium-term Federal State budget planning, has grown immensely. Rather than increasing the BMZ’s budget, the German Federal Government is actually planning on cutting its budget back by 368.6 million Euros by 2015 in comparison to 2011. In the light of this gaping hole in the German Federal Government’s policy credibility, terre des hommes and Welthungerhilfe welcome the supradepartmental German Bundestag initiative for a “development policy consensus” as an important political signal.

>>>

Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes call upon the German Federal Government once again to come up with a plan of action for attaining the 0.7% target by 2015. This must include an annual increase in German ODA by at least 2 billion Euros. This investment in the future could easily be financed by the additional tax income anticipated and by the revenues of a European financial transaction tax (FTT). As an immediate measure, Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes call upon the German Bundestag to increase the funding for DC and humanitarian aid in the 2012 federal budget by at least 1.2 billion Euros, this sum having been supported by the majority of MPs in the development policy consensus. In addition, the German Federal Government should increase the proportion of revenues from emissions trading that are used for climate protection and adaptation measures in developing countries, to at least 50%.

The Reality of Aid 2011 19th report 2011 What is really effective? The debate on the development resultsof German policies Publishers: Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e.V. terre des hommes Deutschland e.V. Editing: Birgit Dederichs-Bain, Wolf-Christian Ramm, Klaus Schilder Author: Jens Martens, Global Policy Forum Europe Design: MediaCompany GmbH, Bonn office Printing: DCM Meckenheim 1st edition 2.500, October 2011 Submission deadline: 10. October 2011 This report was printed using 100 % recycled paper ISBN no. 978-3-941553-08-8 DWHH-Lager-no. 460-3023/2 terre des hommes order-no.: 302.1273.19

Deutsche Welthungerhilfe Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 1 53172 Bonn Tel.: +49228/22 88-0 Fax: +49228/22 88-333 Mail: info@welthungerhilfe.de Internet: www.welthungerhilfe.de terre des hommes Deutschland e.V. Hilfe für Kinder in Not Ruppenkampstraße 11 a 49084 Osnabrück Tel.: +49541/71 01-0 Fax: +49541/70 72 33 Mail: info@tdh.de Internet: www.tdh.de