Development Cooperation in Miniature

[This post was published simultaneously in the El País blog 3.500 millones.]

In the midst of our usual litany of misfortunes, the OECD yesterday provided some positive news that is truly global in scope: in 2013, despite the wave of austerity measures introduced in donor countries, official development assistance (ODA) rose by 6.1% after two consecutive years of declining volumes. The USD 134.8 billion provided by donors in 2013 represents an all-time high that will sustain some of the crucial battles of our time, such as vaccination against malaria, universal education for girls, and ending infant mortality. However, a closer look at the figures suggests that this effort is still not enough and that aid continues to be too dependent on the solidarity of a few contributors.

Although the Scandinavian countries and Luxembourg stand out in the group of countries that make a relatively greater effort (all of whom contribute in excess of 0.7% of their gross national income [GNI]), the lion’s share of aid is still contributed by the traditional powers. Five donors, with the USA at the top of the list, control two of every three dollars spent on international cooperation. Of these, my personal hero is the United Kingdom: with an increase of—wait for it— 28% in 2013, Cameron’s Conservative Government demolished ideological clichés when for the first time the UK surpassed the 0.7% threshold to become the second highest donor overall with a whopping USD 17.9 billion.

Spain, sadly, has consolidated its membership of the band of outcasts with a paltry 0.16% of GNI and a total contribution of USD 2200 million. And in case you think things can’t get any worse, both of these figures are higher than those budgeted for 2014.

Our miniature cooperation budget can do little more than cover the cost of maintaining the Spanish aid structure and meet our compulsory contributions to international organizations, leaving us at the children’s table in any important decision-making forum in this field.

So unless President Rajoy’s strategy is to gain access to the UN Security Council by playing snakes and ladders, our international influence looks likely to continue to shrink like a cheap suit.

Overall, the data published yesterday indicates a step in the right direction; more than the absolute figure itself, the really important thing is that it represents a turnaround. Over the last two decades, the costs of development and global human security have risen much faster than the funds available for cooperation. Just a few days ago, scientists from the IPCC reminded us that only swift and generous investment will prevent the most dramatic and expensive consequences of uncontrolled global warming. In the more immediate future, the negotiators working on the new Millennium Goals are proposing solutions such as universal health coverage, with an estimated cost for low-income countries of USD 60 per person per year, compared to the current investment of USD 32.

How can we hope to achieve goals like these when we are all busy clapping like circus seals over a level of aid that has stagnated at 0.3% of the average GNI of developed countries? So let’s celebrate the small increase today, but tomorrow let’s start working on a real global budgetary revolution that will bring development revenues up to levels where they can begin to meet the challenges. The introduction of a tax on financial transactions, coordination with large philanthropic organisations, and increased domestic spending in poor countries are just three of the priorities on our agenda.

As for Spain, let’s not let the situation get us down. If the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot even see the irony in demanding solidarity from Catalans within Spain while denying it to Africans, that is his problem (even though you and I will end up paying the bill).Whether we are talking about security, health, climate change, or migration, the real world is very different from the narrow and compartmentalized nineteenth-century one conveyed by our foreign policy. But we have become so totally irrelevant at this point that even that matters very little. I am not joking: were it not for the fact that Spain still has a presence and is involved in intelligent cooperation in places like sub-Saharan Africa, I think the sensible option would be to shut up shop altogether and spend the money every year on two or three important global initiatives or regions in crisis. If the future looks like more of what we’re seeing today, we should seriously consider that option.