The politics of aid and the EU: Lessons from Mindanao
WITH the decision of the government to no longer accept European Union (EU) aid that come with conditions, not a few civil society actors in Mindanao agreed with government, in a seeming rebuke of EU ambassador Franz Jessen’s statement lamenting that the aid to be lost would be substantial support for Mindanao.
These NGO old timers in peacebuilding work simply thought that after decades of working on the island, much of that aid hasn’t done much, with a good part pilfered, some corrupted and then some going back to them anyway through their consultants and preferred suppliers.
One I spoke with tells of instances where humanitarian food aid goes often to groups and people who seem to be the same recipients over and over again. Others, she says, are tired of being interviewed again and again for “assessments” and participating in endless consultations.
What appalls her isn’t the behavior of the recipients, who truly need assistance, but of some donor agencies, who seem to shrug their shoulders at the phenomena.
With this i remember a friend from an alpine Asian country used to boast how they as a country receives a lot of aid from European countries but that they get to decide how the money is used, to force the donors to make sure their support is unconditional.
Have we done the same with the supposed billions coming from the EU? Shouldn’t development aid from them go through a better vetting process to make sure they are used wisely?
Ok. Time to ask the important question: Was the government at fault for rejecting aid with conditions? Of course not.
As taxpayers we demand that government keep our interests in mind before engaging in such arrangements with entities like the EU, which are organizations that do not even count us as members, and share no boundaries with any of them. Our relations with this organization are strictly at our recognizance.
Accepting aid with certain conditions is normal for development agencies. It just matters that we examine the conditions before accepting the aid. For the first time, it seems like we’ll be examining aid more closely.
If this aid is being used in order to lobby the Philippine government for certain concessions that favor them at the expense of Philippine interests, then we should not accept the aid. For our part, we must never accede to unfair or onerous conditions.
Sadly, a number in Manila have been fretting over the possible loss of aid as though our poverty numbers will double, among other things. Our advice to them: study what it is they have been spending the money on, and examine how this impacts our trade relations. Its time we account for how exactly this money has been spent and review our strategic foreign affairs perspectives.
As for the EU, they will lose a lot of leverage on the Philippines if the aid goes. Being an Asian country, the EU is a non-entity to us. As such, the EU should not let relations with manila sour, they stand to lose more if they squander this opportunity, what with Europe needing the markets that Southeast Asian countries like ours brings to help their own businesses survive amid declining economies and shrinking populations. The future of our relationships with them will depend on how they respond. The future success of the EU in Asia is not that certain. For
On the right side, perhaps this is the start of a renewed relationship with the European Union. The ball of recalibration and improvement of these ties is in the EUs court. 5.25% agri growth needs
to be pushed further Meanwhile, we suffered with the rebuke of our fisherfolk, and farmers over the six Aquino years, where our agriculture even declined sue to a variety of factors. The Aquino agricultural policy did little to expand agriculture, which, as we all know, positively impacts poor rural families and strengthens the nonManila legs of our nation’s economy.
Why the previous Department of Agriculture was unable to do that I don’t really know, but I hope Congress investigates former Secretary Alcala on the matter. It’s high time this important sector gets the same public attention as corruption and drugs, and it is also time that the public monitor this sectors performance as it does the price of oil and our foreign currency exchange rates.. After all, this is food. Having more than we need is always better.
We retain the hope that with more access to credit as promised through the Land Bank of the Philippines, and free irrigation, our farmers may have the tools and capital to expand their crop and livestock production even more to allow us to achieve two things: plug the hunger gap, estimated by survey firms at about 30%, and remove our status as a net importer even of commodities as basic as beef.
As they do these, they encourage their own children to produce just like them. Farming will then regain its status as a provider for the economy, rather than the beneficiary it was turned into over the last twenty years.