REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Final Report on the implementation of the EU Food Facility /* COM/2013/0194 final */
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Final Report on the implementation of the
EU Food Facility List of acronyms AFSI AGIR Sahel AU-IBAR CSP/RSP DEVCO EDF EU FAO FSTP IFAD MFF NGO NSA PSNP SHARE SWD UN UNHLTF UNRWA WB WFP || L’Aquila Food Security Initiative Alliance Globale pour l'Initiative Résilience African Union Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources Country/Regional Strategy Paper Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation - EuropeAid European Development Fund European Union Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Food Security Thematic Programme International Fund for Agricultural Development Multi- annual financial framework Non-Governmental Organisation Non-State actor Productive Safety Net Programme Supporting Horn of Africa Resilience Staff Working Document United Nations United Nations High-Level Task Force United Nations Relief and Works Agency The World Bank World Food Programme 1. Introduction In 2008, the long-term trend of decreasing food
prices reversed with a sharp rise of staple food
prices. As a consequence, more than 100 million people in developing
countries plunged
into hunger. High and volatile food prices worsened the food insecurity situation, particularly
for the most vulnerable people, and contributed to food riots in several
countries. During the G8 Summit in July 2008, the Commission announced its intention
for a EUR 1 billion Food Facility instrument to react on a large scale to the effects of the food price crisis, indeed the EU response through the existing instruments[1] required to be scaled up to address
the needs resulting from such an economic shock. On 16
December 2008, the Food Facility ('Facility for a rapid response to soaring and
volatile food prices in developing countries') was established. The EU Food
Facility constituted the first major financial response to the food crisis
and helped to strengthen international coordination in the UN and the G8. For
its most part, the Food Facility added to the US$ 3.9 billion contribution made by the Commission to
the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative (AFSI). The AFSI was launched by G8
leaders on July 2009 and amounts US$22 billion in support of sustainable
agriculture and food security in developing countries over three years. Following
up on these commitments, more recently the EU has launched two new initiatives
to respond to the massive food crises that have hit the Horn of Africa and the Sahel (SHARE[2] and AGIR[3]
Sahel). Moreover, the Commission has adopted a new policy framework to
strengthen the resilience of the most vulnerable people and communities to
future crises[4]. Covering a period of three years (2009-2011),
the EU Food Facility primarily addressed the period between emergency aid
and medium-to-long term development assistance. The objectives were
to: ·
encourage a positive supply response from the agricultural sector in target countries and regions, ·
mitigate the negative effects of volatile
food prices on local populations in line with
global food security objectives, including UN standards for nutritional
requirements; and, ·
strengthen the productive capacities and the
governance of the agricultural sector to enhance
the sustainability of interventions. In line with
these objectives, three categories of measures were eligible for financing:
measures to improve access to agricultural inputs and services, safety
net measures, and other small-scale measures aiming at increasing
production based on country needs. This report provides
information on the various implementation measures taken, the outcomes and
likely impact, and the key lessons learned and recommendations in order
to improve the current and future EU food security programmes. This Communication is accompanied by a
Staff Working Document (SWD), which provides more detail on measures taken and
their short-term impact.[5] 2. Programming and
Implementation In March 2009, the Commission submitted to
the European Parliament and Council an Overall Plan for the implementation
of the Food Facility containing a list of target countries and the foreseen
balance between entities eligible for implementation. It included the following
indicative financial breakdown: (i) EUR 920 million would be allocated to 50
countries selected on the basis of indicative criteria, (ii) EUR 60 million
would be used for regional-level interventions in Africa, and (iii) EUR 20
million was retained for support measures. The funds were entirely committed by May
2010. The speed of the approval process owes much to the set up of a Task Force by the Commission, the use of fast track procedures, and to the flexibility shown by the
European Parliament, which accepted shortened periods for exercising its right
of scrutiny. While the large majority of activities was
implemented as planned, in the course of implementation a number of changes were
made to the Overall Plan, amounting to 5.2% of
the value of the EU Food Facility[6]. Implementation could not take place in the Comoros while, in a few
countries, allocations were reduced (e.g. Madagascar, Guinea, Sao Tomé y
Principe) or increased (e.g. Zambia). Budget support programmes could not be
implemented as initially foreseen[7], on the
other hand support channelled through NGOs and EU Member States agencies
increased, compared to initial plans. The large majority of activities ended
in 2011. However a few interventions were only completed in the first half
of 2012[8].
By 31 December 2010, the EU Food Facility was
contracted[9] through a total of 179 contracts and agreements covering 232
projects. Budget Support operations and projects with International and
Regional Organisations have been managed centrally at DEVCO, together with the
support measures, while the projects with NGOs and Member States agencies were
devolved to EU Delegations in January 2010. The
Commission disbursed almost 100% of the total amount of EUR 983.7 million
(excluding the support measures). This very high rate was achieved thanks to
the use of fast track procedures, close monitoring, and flexibility in
re-allocations. A maximum of 2% of the EU Food Facility (i.e. a maximum of EUR 20
million) had been foreseen in the Regulation for support measures,
including the recruitment of temporary staff in EU Delegations, monitoring,
audit, evaluation, studies, conferences and technical assistance. Eventually,
EUR 17.3 million were used for these purposes. In addition to the use of
support measures, the Commission redeployed ten posts at Headquarter level to
set up the initiative. 3. Monitoring,
Audit and Evaluation The Food Facility has been closely
monitored: 176 projects
(more than 75% of the Food Facility projects) have been monitored using the
Results-Oriented Monitoring ROM approach and 236 monitoring reports have
been drafted by external experts, analysed by the Commission staff in Brussels
and in EU Delegations and shared, in most cases, with both the implementing
partners and local authorities. The project scores have been good, with 70%
of the projects scoring a 'very good and good' performance, 23% performing
'with problems' and only 7% listed as having 'major difficulties'[10]. These results are similar to the averages of the ROM results
for EU projects in general, as assessed in 2011.[11] A
second monitoring mission was often conducted later during the lifespan of the
project, aiming to measure the progress in performance and follow up on the
recommendations. Furthermore, regular progress reports
and specific final reports have been delivered by the implementing partners[12] with whom field visits and
regular coordination meetings have been undertaken. The whole set of monitoring
information has been captured in a global management
scoreboard developed as an interactive tool used to update in real time
monitoring information at the Commission and in EU Delegations. Independent evaluations have been undertaken at three levels: (i) at project level
for the projects implemented by International Organisations, NGOs and Member
State Agencies, (ii) at implementing partner level (e.g. FAO[13], AU-IBAR), and (iii) at
global level, on the EU Food Facility Instrument[14]. A Final Evaluation of the EU
Food Facility has been carried out in 2011-2012 and followed the Evaluation
Methodology of the Commission. It concluded notably that the Commission has
been efficient and effective in implementing the Food Facility, the
interventions were relevant and projects had a clearly positive effect on
beneficiaries. However, a longer implementation period and a narrowed
geographical scope would have allowed a greater impact. Moreover, the European Court of Auditors published recently a Special Report
on the Effectiveness of EU food Security assistance in
Sub-Saharan Africa which recommends, among others, that
the EU should examine the feasibility of a permanent instrument to address the
consequences of potential future food-crises in developing countries[15]. 4. the outcomes
and likely impact Despite its short
timeframe, the Food Facility
reached more than 59 million direct beneficiaries
with spillover effects on 93 million indirect beneficiaries, most of
them vulnerable smallholders and their families[16]. The
interventions have been aligned to partner countries’ policies and priorities
and implemented in coordination, complementarity and coherence with the EU
food security instruments such as the Food Security Thematic Programme and
EU Member States' and other donor’s programmes. More
than 65% of the interventions have scaled up on-going operations, with
additional funding channelled through existing implementation structures where
relevant and possible. This allowed a quick response and fitted in the short
time span of the Food Facility. Designed as part of the UNHLTF coordinated
international response to the food price crisis, almost 60% of the funding
was channelled through UN agencies. This permitted a timely
and tailored response thanks to the agencies' wide presence on the
ground, which provided a good visibility profile to the Food Facility at
country level. The Food Facility has also been instrumental in strengthening
the Commission partnerships with the United Nations Rome Based Agencies[17], which ultimately led to the signature of a
Statement of Intent for a framework for programmatic cooperation on food
security and nutrition.[18]
The interventions have also been implemented by more
than 425 non-State actors, most of them local and country-based. More than two-third of them have
been contracted by the UN agencies while 124, operating under the Call
for Proposals, have been contracted by the Commission. The main achievements,
results and short-term impact of the Food Facility interventions are presented
below for each of the three types of interventions identified in the
Regulation. 4.1. Measures
to improve access to agricultural inputs and services Most of the interventions
of the Food Facility (62%) focused on improving smallholders’ agricultural
production and/or access to inputs. The distribution of agricultural inputs represented the largest component
of the projects implemented by FAO and by NGOs. 124.600
metric tons of certified and ameliorated seeds and 950.000 metric tons of
fertiliser have been distributed to the targeted farmers. The main challenge in
this field was to meet the agricultural calendar-specific requirements despite
binding procurement procedures and limited availability on the local market. As reported by the implementing partners, the various
projects led to an average increase in agricultural production of 50%
(with a range between 20% and 100%) and an average increase in household
annual income of almost EUR 290 (with a range between EUR 40 and EUR 2100). In Guatemala, FAO and WFP jointly
strengthened the agricultural productivity and marketing capacity of 14.000
smallholders.
In Alta Verapaz, the maize productivity of farmers increased from an average of
2.1 tons/hectare to an average of 3.5 tons/hectare. Households were able to
produce surpluses of 20% on average as some the producers could achieve a good
level of organization and meet international quality standards. Production has also
been increased through projects targeting livestock owners, by providing
them with a total of 834.000 animals (cattle, goats, pigs and chicken). An
important impact has been achieved in terms of productivity through increasing
agricultural mechanisation (in Zambia for example, the use of lighter seeding implements instead of heavy ploughs
promoted gender equity as planting and weeding is traditionally women’s work) and decreasing mortality through
livestock vaccination. AU-IBAR implemented the "Vaccines for the
Control of Neglected Anima Diseases in Africa" (VACNADA) project in 28
Sub-Saharan African countries. A total of 44.6 million livestock
were vaccinated against 4 contagious animal diseases, dramatically reducing
the occurrence of those diseases in the target areas. The higher immunity
gained by vaccinating allowed livestock owners (especially smallholders who
could not afford to pay for vaccination) to keep their stock, sell the
surplus and cover household and unforeseen expenditures. The project also improved the production
capacity (in some cases by 100%) and the quality of selected vaccines through
the supply of equipment and the upgrading of facilities of vaccine producing
laboratories, complemented with training activities to enhance veterinary
services capacities. Most of the projects have accompanied the seed/fertiliser
and livestock distribution with the distribution of tools, vaccines, and
agricultural machineries. More than 88.000 machineries and post-harvest
facilities have been provided to beneficiaries. Partnerships
with the private sector, in particular through local agro-dealers, contributed
not only to enhance inputs availability and circulation but also stimulated
the local economy. Various projects involved
diversification of production (e.g. horticulture in Bangladesh, small animal
rearing in Tanzania, fish-ponds, medium scale plantain or vegetable production
in Haiti), which led to beneficiaries having access to more diversified food.
In addition, projects enhanced production for the market, allowing the
generation of a small cash income for households that previously lived on
subsistence. In the Self Help Africa project
implemented in Ethiopia the agricultural production increased by 35%
for 17.500 households through the distribution of 606 Mt of improved seeds,
29 Mt of animal feed, 278.000 animal drugs (antibiotics and antihelminthtics),
machinery (seed cleaners, irrigation pumps, dairy materials) and the
construction of 16 seed stores. The yearly income of the beneficiaries
has increased, ranging from approximately 290 EUR to 1.500 EUR. The operations
involved capacity building to support the sustainable achievement in
increased agricultural productivity. Capacity building activities were
associated with a wide range of actions including the training of farmers in
agricultural and irrigation techniques; they also enhanced the capacities of
local farmer groups and producers’ associations. Moreover, training sessions
not only targeted farmers but also government officials and other stakeholders.
Almost 2.5 million people have benefitted from the various training
activities. Extension methodologies, such as Farmer Field Schools and rural
promoters, provided effective channels for advice through on-farm
demonstrations on sustainable production intensification, good agriculture
practices, conservation agriculture, soil fertility management, small-scale
irrigation, crop diversification etc. In Zambia, food production
increased through an improved access to agricultural inputs and the promotion
of conservation agriculture principles. During extension days at Farmer Field
Schools (FFS) 400 Camp Extension Officers transferred their knowledge in
Conservation Agriculture to 28 lead farmers who, in turn, each trained 15 other
participating farmers. In this manner nearly 180,000 farmers were reached. The dissemination of conservation
agriculture practices resulted on average in a 30% increase in maize production
from 2 tons/hectare to 2.6 tons/hectare. Following on from the EUR 16.9
million channelled into the project through the Food Facility, a new
contribution of EUR 11.1 million is planned (financed from the European
Development Fund) to further spread the conservation agriculture approach in
the country. 4.2. Safety net measures and
nutrition interventions Safety net type of interventions, amounting
to approximately EUR 138 million, allowed beneficiaries to cope with the
effects of high food prices, mostly through cash/food for work projects and
voucher schemes. Rural poor (and sometimes urban poor) have benefitted from
safety net measures (e.g. PSNP in Ethiopia) and cash or food for work projects
(e.g. Sierra Leone, Pakistan). Safety net measures have been implemented by
partners experienced in cash or food distribution, like the World Bank, UNRWA,
and WFP but also by NGOs, which have used one quarter of the amount channelled
through them as cash for work (EUR 57 million). In most cases, the extra income resulting
from activities has helped the beneficiaries to overcome the food price crisis,
as well as – in a few cases – the natural disasters affecting them during the
lifespan of the Food Facility (droughts, floods). Moreover, it increased the
resilience of the poorest and prevented the sale of their productive assets
(animals, small machinery), which allowed households to improve their lives
after the crises. In Bangladesh, food and cash for
work schemes benefitted 607,000 people through short-term employment provided
to 121,000 marginal or landless agricultural workers during the lean seasons; 989
flood resilient agricultural assets including embankments, access roads,
raising land and seed beds, and irrigation facilities have been built and
rehabilitated to protect 1.7 million people. In very specific cases, food was also
distributed, as food for work or even as food aid, to the most vulnerable
people. For example, UNRWA, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, distributed
34.500 Mt of food, and WFP distributed 96.600 Mt in countries with areas
characterised by severe food scarcity (e.g. Pakistan, Bangladesh, and
Guatemala). More than one third (37%) of the projects
had nutrition-related activities. The Food Facility
improved the nutritional status of the most vulnerable people, especially
children. Several interventions specifically targeted children up to 6 years
and pregnant and breast-feeding women, in order to mitigate the effects of the
food price crisis. In Niger, Mali, and Liberia for example, more than 25.000 Mt
of nutritional foodstuff and millions of vitamins have been distributed while
141.000 beneficiaries, mostly mothers and medical and paramedical personnel
were trained in nutrition improvement practices. In Mali, more than 11 million
children aged between 6 and 59 months received Vitamin A supplementation;
1.300.000 children in Niger have benefitted from mothers sensitization
and awareness building campaigns related to prevention of malnutrition. In Guatemala,
100,000 children from 6-36 months and 50,000 pregnant and breast-feeding women
received additional food rations while 8,000 subsistence farmers received food
rations for participating in training activities. 4.3. Other small-scale measures
aiming at increasing agricultural production Many of the projects included other
components that targeted production improvement, for instance by addressing
post-harvest losses, water availability and conservation or access to markets.
In total 315.350 ha of agricultural land was rehabilitated or irrigated while
13.656 dikes, dams, and micro-dams, and more than 10.600 km of road (mainly
feeder roads) were rehabilitated or construction. Furthermore, other small-scale
measures included the provision of micro-credit, the construction of seed
centres and research facilities. In Northern Afghanistan, 4,880 families participated
in a cash for work programme in infrastructure and water activities resulting
in the construction and rehabilitation of 107 km of roads, 1,057 km of
irrigation channels; 3,164 ha of land were made available for agriculture,
thus improving agricultural productivity and access to villages and markets,
especially during winter. As a consequence, 218,000 people benefited from
rehabilitated and newly built infrastructure and flood protection measures, and
6,500 families now have access to safe drinking water. Other activities covered diverse domains
including fishing (Cambodia, Philippines, Guinea Conakry, Mozambique), urban
agriculture (Kenya), policy framework support (Nepal), seed multiplication
(Burkina Faso, Niger, Nepal, Mozambique), or conservation agriculture (Zambia). The Food Facility positively impacted the
lives of more than 59 million direct beneficiaries by boosting sustainable
agricultural production from small-scale farmers, reducing post-harvest losses
and facilitating access to markets. The interventions improved
smallholders’ capacities in land, livestock, and water management, contributing
to increase and diversify their sources of incomes. Furthermore, the Food
Facility contributed to increasing access to food and to strengthening the
food and nutrition situation of the most vulnerable people, especially women
and children. 5. KEY LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS Lessons learned 1. The EU has proven its
ability to establish and effectively implement the EUR 1 billion Food Facility.
This bold move has placed the EU at the forefront of the donor community
with regards sustainable agriculture and food security. Since then, it has
remained the first donor on food security, which continues to be on the
top of the international agenda with the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative and
the G8 New Alliance for Food and Nutrition Security initiative. 2. The successful
implementation of the Food Facility owed much to its swift set up, its
scale, and above all to its responsiveness. The creation respectively by
the Commission and by the UN of two dedicated Task Forces to mobilise the
appropriate work force and expertise played a central role. 3. The main objective was to rapidly
address the consequences of the food price crisis, rather than its causes.
However, the Food Facility enhanced the readiness of the poor people and
communities to face subsequent crises, which was beneficial since many
countries in sub-Saharan Africa have since been hit again by food crises as a
result of multiple and intertwined drivers including poverty, climate
hazards, high and volatile food prices, pressure on natural resources
(including inappropriate land tenure systems), rapid demographic growth,
fragile governance, and political instability. Furthermore, the most vulnerable
people will be confronted more frequently and more severely to the impact of
these factors, particularly in the Sahel and the Horn of Africa. 4. The Food Facility’s focus
on increased agricultural production has successfully triggered a positive
supply response at local level. However, those interventions cannot substitute
for the need for partner countries to strengthen their long term support to
sustainable agriculture and food security. 5. The achievement of
programmes’ objectives has sometimes been challenging due to the relatively
short implementation period. As it is already the case with SHARE and AGIR
Sahel, the articulation between short and medium-to-long term interventions
must be strengthened. 6. Moreover, Food Facility
interventions primarily targeted food availability and access to food.
While access to food is a major concern, access to nutritious food is even more
challenging in many partner countries. Addressing maternal and child under
nutrition could have been given more attention. 7. In 2012, nearly 30 million
vulnerable people have been suffering from food crisis in the Horn of Africa
and the Sahel, it highlights the need for the EU to maintain a strong
capacity to react promptly. As recommended by the European Court of
Auditors and the Parliament, the Commission will identify the best options
taking advantage of the modifications of the Financial Regulation and the
Financial Framework. Recommendations The EU should increase its assistance in
sustainable agriculture and food security. In the framework of its geographical
programming for 2014-2020: 1. The EU should place sustainable
agriculture and food security at the core of its policy dialogue with partner
countries and further support partner countries’ policies and priorities
addressing the underlying factors fomenting food crises. 2. The EU assistance
should give particular attention to food insecure countries. The
“structured food security assessment” developed by the Commission to this
purpose should be fully used. 3. Fostering the
resilience of the most at risk people, communities, and partner countries is
a central aim of EU assistance towards food and nutrition security. In
the framework of its approach to resilience the EU should increase its support
to vulnerability reduction by increasing partner countries’ capacities to
prevent and to prepare to future shocks, and to respond to crises when they
occur. It means, notably enhancing Disaster Risk Management activities, in
particular in disaster prone partner countries. 4. Building on the lessons
learned from the Food Facility implementation as well as from the launch of
SHARE, and AGIR Sahel initiatives, the EU should use the existing instruments
and the recent possibility to set up Trust Funds to foster a structural
approach to support partner countries confronted by food crises. 5. Using wherever possible
the existing national and regional structures and capacities, the EU
response to food crises will be designed according to the nature of the crisis
and its context. Such an approach will pay careful attention to ownership,
taking into account the inter-relation between food security on one
hand, and governance, state fragility and peace building
on the other hand, in particular in fragile states and in chronic food insecure
contexts. 6. CONCLUSION AND STEP FORWARD Through the Food Facility, instrumental in
fostering a coordinated UN response, the EU has been able to rapidly and
effectively respond to the effects of the 2007/08 food price crisis. The EUR 1
billion Food Facility has directly benefitted over 59 million people in 49
developing countries. It has been able to support a positive
supply response from small-scale farmers, increasing production and income.
The safety net measures have mitigated the effects of food price increases
on the most vulnerable segments of the population. Other measures have more
broadly supported the production base for agriculture. In that sense, the Food
Facility has achieved significant results towards increasing sustainable
agricultural production, reducing post-harvest losses and facilitating access
to markets. Moreover, the Food
Facility has contributed to placing sustainable agricultural development and
food security at the frontline of the global development agenda. It has
stimulated continued international attention in fora like the Committee on
World Food Security and the G8 and the G20 stressing the need to increase
agricultural production and productivity on a sustainable basis and contributing
to strengthen global governance mechanisms by improving global market
information[19].
While the Food Facility largely reached its
objectives, more needs to be done to address food insecurity, particularly in
low income and disaster prone countries. Building on the lessons learned from
the Food Facility, the EU support to sustainable agricultural development
and food security should be strengthened as a focal sector of cooperation in
chronically food insecure countries. In the framework of the joint programming
exercise for 2014-2020, the EU Delegations have been provided a specific
guidance to ensure that sustainable agriculture and food security priorities
have been taken care of, in particular in 52 partner countries selected
according to structured food and nutrition security assessments. These
priorities should be reflected in the policy dialogue developed by the EU
Delegations, which will emphasize long-term impact and ownership[20], in particular
from a long-term sustainability perspective. In this context, the EU should focus on the
most off track countries in the area of food and nutrition security, using the
most effective existing financing mechanisms to reduce structural
vulnerability in the long run, and fostering the resilience of the poorest
households, countries and regions in the face of future food crises, whatever
their nature. [1] The Vulnerability FLEX mechanism (500 million EUR),
the European Development Fund-B envelope (185.9 million EUR), the Food Security
Thematic Programme (50 million EUR) and ECHO (210 million EUR). [2] Supporting Horn of Africa Resilience (SHARE). [3] AGIR : Alliance globale pour l'Initiative Résilience
- Sahel [4] COM (2012) 586. [5] SWD(2013) 107. [6] SWD(2013) 107. [7] Budget support programmes became
less important than planned in Comoros, Madagascar,
Niger, Ethiopia and Zambia. [8] For a very small number of projects, the Commission
has granted an extension until the 31st of December 2012, due to later
reallocation of funds to a well performing project (Zambia) or to difficult
contexts (Mali, Yemen, Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan). [9] With the exception of EUR 5.8 million for Zambia,
contracted in 2011. [10] Results-Oriented Monitoring
final report available in DEVCO website. [11] The Annual Report 2012 on the European Union’s Development and external assistance
policies and their implementation in 2011. SWD (2012) 242 final. [12] Aggregated data from reports
are presented in the section 4 « Outcomes and likely impact ». [13] "European Union Food
Facility. Foundations for future action. FAO Initial Review of
Selected Projects".
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ISFP/EuFF_web.pdf [14] Food Facility Final Evaluation: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/intervention-areas/ruraldev/food_intro_en.htm [15] Special Report n°1: Effectiveness of European Union
Development Aid for food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa. 2012. European Court
of Auditors. [16] This figure does not include the Budget Support
interventions and Regional Organisations activities. [17] FAO, WFP and IFAD. [18] Statement of Intent - Programmatic Cooperation on Food
Security and Nutrition signed by FAO, WFP, IFAD and the Commission on 27 June
2011. [19] In the framework of its Action Plan on Food Price Volatility and Agriculture, the G20 Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) initiative, launched in June 2011,
aims for example, to increase global market
transparency and information and strengthen policy coordination. http://www.amis-outlook.org. [20] According to the principles of
the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, the Accra Agenda for Action, and
the EU Code of Conduct on Division of Labour.