A comparative analysis mainly based on DAC peer reviews. Presentation given by Geert Laporte at the European Institute for Asian Studies, Brussels, 28 May 2013

1. A comparative analysis
(mainly based on DAC peer
reviews)
Geert Laporte
European Institute for Asian Studies, Brussels 28 May 2013
Japan and the EU:
Development
Partners

2. Independent foundation working on EU-Africa
relations for more than 25 years:
1. Non-partisan facilitation of dialogue
2. Practical and policy relevant analysis
3. Linking key players in the EU and Africa,
through networks and partnerships
4. Capacity building in Africa to bring more
balance in the partnership with the EU
5. Building alliances with non-EU players in
development (Japan, BRICS, USA, South
Korea, Switzerland…)
WHAT IS ECDPM?
Page 2

3. THREE PARTS:
1.The changing development
context
2.Comparative analysis Japan-EU
3.Where can Japan and EU join
forces?
STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION
ECDPM Page 3

4. 1. Global financial and economic crisis, particularly affecting
EU
2. Declining aid budgets (ODA) but increasing needs for
different sources of finance to tackle development and
global challenges (e.g climate change)
3. New players in development (BRICS, G-20, private
sector, development foundations,…)
4. A more political vision of development: Busan: “…it is
essential to examine the inter-dependence and coherence
of all public policies – not just development policies…”
THE CHANGING DEVELOPMENT
CONTEXT
ECDPM Page 4

5. JAPAN
• Economic power-
house but little
political power
• Losing influence to
new competitors,
mainly in Asia
(China, Korea,…)
PLACE IN GLOBAL LANDSCAPE
Page 5ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• Trade giant but
political dwarf (in
spite of Lisbon
Treaty)
• “EU is a payer not a
player”
• Losing influence to
emerging
economies (BRICS
etc)

6. JAPAN
• From biggest aid donor
(1991-2000) to 5th donor
(2013)
• Presence in some 140
countries
• Not considered to be a
leader in the policy
debates and agenda-
setting but quite an
effective implementer
PLACE IN DEVELOPMENT
Page 6ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• EU “formidable player”
(DAC): 60% of all aid in
the world (EU & MS) &
largest humanitarian
donor…but declining
budgets
• Network of 136 Delegations
• Strong on policy and
strategy development
(EU Consensus on
Development, Agenda
for Change,…)…but
weak on implementation

7. JAPAN
• Focus on economic
transformation (“self help” +
own development experience
): economic growth,
infrastructure, industrial
production, agriculture,..)
• Commercial and business
interests
• Fragile states and human
security has been added
• Strong focus on technical
cooperation
• Principle of non-
intervention
POLICY ORIENTATIONS
Page 7ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• Poverty reduction
• Value driven agenda
(good governance)
• Inclusive growth
• Support to regional
integration (own role
model)
• Rather normative
development approach
(…with double
standards)

8. JAPAN
• Key focus = (East)
Asia (but also
doubling of aid to
Africa in recent years
)
• Focus on middle
income countries
GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS
Page 8ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• Key focus=Africa
• Least developed
countries (“direct aid
where it is most
needed”)
• Increasing
differentiation: no
more aid to upper
middle income
countries

9. JAPAN
• 0,18% of GNI (approx 10
billion $)
• Rather traditional
approach: projects rather
than programmes, loans,
technical cooperation, tied
aid,…
• Strong preference for
bilateral earmarked aid
(84% in 2008)
• Need to increase use of
programmatic
approaches and
core/institutional
funding
VOLUMES & MODALITIES
Page 9ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• 0,44% of GNI (2010) =
70 Billion $ ODA
• Collective ODA level of
0,7% of GNI will not be
reached in 2015
• Strong focus on regional
organisations
• Need to increase use
of flexible core
funding

10. JAPAN
• Quite centralised and
hierarchical
• More responsibility to
implementation and
coordination agency
(new JICA)
• Need to delegate more
authority to the field
• Separate and additional
reporting for Japanese
earmarked funds= high
transaction costs
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT
Page 10ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• Complex institutional
architecture (unclear role
division and duplication
EEAS-DEVCO)
• Several financial
instruments with heavy
procedures
• Increased devolution of
authority and staff to the
field
• Intense scrutiny by EP,
Council, European Court
of Auditors, think tanks,
NGOs

11. JAPAN
• „go-it alone approach‟
• Resistance to
harmonisation
COORDINATION & HARMONISATION
Page 11ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• Strong declarations
but little action on
coordination and
complementarity

12. JAPAN
• No explicit policy
statement, institutional
mechanisms and
monitoring and
reporting systems on
PCD
POLICY COHERENCE FOR
DEVELOPMENT (PCD)
Page 12ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• In spite of solid
strategic framework
with appropriate
institutional
mechanisms,
independent analytical
capacities and tools
to track progress …
little concrete
progress has been
achieved

13. JAPAN
• Key focus on national
governments
• Low involvement of civil
society
organisations/NGOs (only
3% of budget)
• Rather modest pro-
development lobby and
limited involvement of
Japanese NGOs in
implementation
PARTNERS & PUBLIC SUPPORT
Page 13ECDPM
EUROPEAN UNION
• Key focus on
governments and CSOs
• Structured dialogue with
CSOs and local
authorities
• Strong public support
for development in
most EU countries

14. • Africa increasingly important for both partners
• TICAD V (1-3 June 2013 Yokohama)- EU-Africa
Summit (April 2014)
• Common concerns, priorities and interests that
could be different from emerging development
players
• Complement “traditional” MDG development focus
with new Post 2015 development vision
WHERE CAN JAPAN AND EU
JOIN FORCES?
ECDPM Page 14

15. Thank you
gl@ecdpm.org
www.ecdpm.org
www.slideshare.net/ecdpm
Page 15