Donor harmonization is one of the many by-words floating across the EU development field. After decades of sending development aid to primarily ACP countries, the Commission, together with other donor Member States have come to an understanding that they should “properly” divide the work. Donor harmonization is seen as an ideal attempt to enable donors to be more specialized and thus be more effective as well as to circumvent recipients´ donor fatigue resulting from serving documentary requirements of many “little” projects in a particular sector. 

As a result, the Commission has now prioritized infrastructural support in the upcoming 10th EDF for ACP countries since the Commission had been financing the sector in the past. Needless to say, other Member States will be responsible in addressing MDG-related sectors such as health and education. In fact, according to David Cronin of IPS, Françoise Moreau, head of the policy coherence unit in the Commission's directorate-general for development, has acknowledged that her institution has deliberately decided to put the emphasis on infrastructural projects and continued that "Our member states usually prefer to focus on health and education rather than transport".

A critical analysis of how donor harmonization is being implemented needs to be done. As one looks deeper into its implications, the following lapses appear:

Lapse 1: MDG aid gaps in ACP countries

In principle, donor harmonization is an effective collaborated approach to development aid. However, a key concern is ensuring that EU commitments are not being compromised. It is a fact that Member States do not operate in all ACP countries, rather each State is focused in places where they had historical presence. Should Member States be responsible in health and education, it should be made certain that sectors especially those relating to MDGs are addressed in all the ACP countries. At present, it is not at all transparent if MDG related sectors such as health and education are being addressed across all in ACP Country Strategy Papers (CSPs). If there is genuine intent to abide by the commitments made in the Cotonou Agreement, it should clearly and concretely stated “who does what” in the CSPs.

Lapse 2: Are the bases adequately covered?

 A month ago, the WB Global Monitoring Report emphasized that the Sub Saharan region is nowhere close to reaching any MDGs by 2015. A number of developing countries in Asia have already reached some of the goals but continue to lag in many. There is still a lot of work to be done in the MDGs but the Commission seems to opt to leave it at the hands of the Member States. Thus, it is also not just about a question of whether the sectors are covered but more if they are adequately responded to. The first question is whether there is an indication of how much is needed for a particular sector or not. How much does it really take for Country X to reduce children mortality by two thirds? This is a crucial question where civil society should play a key role in and the national government and donors be accountable of. It is only when there is a basis of how much is needed can it be said if aid in a sector is sufficient enough.

Lapse 3: Is what supposed to happen actually happening?

Lastly, the devil is in the details. Should donors completely and adequately respond to the MDGs, there is still a concern if these are being accomplished in reality. In theory, transport infrastructure for instance, should aid in poverty eradication as it should enable the poorest farmers to reach the market, the poorest of the sick to reach the hospitals and the poorest students reach their schools effectively and efficiently. However, not all CSPs indicate whether these infrastructure projects directly target the poor sectors of the society. 

Local civil society participation thus becomes an integral part of donor harmonization beginning at the planning stage. There is no real value to the MDGs, if one is to monitor infrastructural projects that benefit the rich. Oftentimes, development aid on infrastructure is used to improve road systems in cities and urban areas, in airports, in large trading ports, wherein the strong political and economic powers of society will benefit. The argument of trickle down effect, many times heard in economic development speak, is weak as it has never, in the last 50 years, showed real positive impact to the poor. 

The fundamental question is how does donor harmonization reinforce or diminish the central objective of the Cotonou Agreement which is poverty eradication? What does it really mean to harmonize donors? Is it simply to divide the work for convenience sake? To lessen transaction costs and be able to specialize? It seems that there is now more focus on process rather than the goal.

Social Watch estimates that at the rate the MDGs are being achieved, it will take the world till 2108 to fully accomplish the goals.  Donor harmonization should not be a reason to ignore commitments made in the Cotonou Agreement. Donor harmonization should not be about dividing the work but sharing the work to achieve what must be achieved.