Italian cooperation chief Elisabetta Belloni: No money until 2012

Elisabetta Belloni does not beat around the bush. Italian Cooperation has almost no more money to carry out new projects, she says.

A career diplomat since 1985, Belloni became a minister plenipotentiary in 2007 before being appointed chief of the Directorate General for Development Cooperation, a department of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a year later.

The DGCS, also known as Italian Cooperation, manages approximately 28 percent of Italy’s international development assistance, while 70 percent is contributed via the Ministry of the Economy and Finance to international institutions and multilateral initiatives.

DGCS’s work focuses mainly on Africa, but also on Mediterranean countries and the Middle East, according to a newly released 2010-2012 action plan that outlines DCGS priorities and available funding. Special attention will be paid to food and agriculture initiatives, to global health - with projects like the new hospital Italian Cooperation inaugurated on May 4 in Afghanistan - but also to women’s health and empowerment, with projects designed to fight against genital mutilations.      

DCGS is also developing new strategies to coordinate international development assistance by Italian universities and local authorities. The first step is the creation of an online database containing all information about projects undertaken by universities and local authorities. A prototype for universities only is already online.

All activities outlined in the action plan are going to be implemented, according to Belloni. But there is hardly any money for additional initiatives - likely until 2012, the DCGS chief said.

In a conversation with Devex. Belloni talks openly about the need to reform Italy’s development assistance, as well as her agency’s severe lack of resources and efforts to strengthen the role of non-governmental organizations.

Budget constraint, political choices

Italy has been cutting down on development cooperation. What has been the impact on the DCGS?

For 2010, the Development Cooperation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs received about 300 million euros. Approximately 90 million went to the U.N. system, while the rest went to projects co-financed by NGOs, but also to emergencies and bilateral initiatives. The relevant thing is that at this point, in May 2010, Italian Cooperation has used all of its 2010 allocation. We can’t carry out new projects and we have also allocated all of our resources for 2011 already because projects are multi-year.

I have to say that we can’t carry out new projects, except with regard to the multilateral initiatives we are going to renew with a more or less substantial reduction. We can implement the approved projects, but we can’t do anything new until the end of 2011 – of course, with some exceptions, but the most part of our resources is already allocated.

What about funds for NGO activities? Is there any possibility of new projects?

No, there is not. We are still evaluating some proposals, but as a rule we don’t have enough resources for new ones.

How does Italy’s development assistance compare to that of other donor countries?

OECD stats have just been released and Italy ranks among the last: In 2009, 0.16 percent of our gross national product was devoted to development cooperation, in spite of our commitment to reaching the target of 0.5 percent of GNP by 2010 and of 0.7 by 2015. We lag greatly behind. According to the budget law, next year there will be unfortunately a further reduction. The DGCS will suffer a cut of one third of its resources.

Do you think that this retrenchment will force you to modify your strategies or to rationalize the employment of resources?

No, I would say no. We have already rationalized to the utmost: We closed offices and reduced the staff drastically. We can’t compress ourselves anymore, otherwise we have to shut down. We touched the bare minimum. I don’t have an idea how to implement further reductions. It is evident that “rebus sic stantibus” [things thus standing], we cannot carry out new projects.

Andris Piebalgs, EU commissioner for development, suggested in a recent press conference that spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on development assistance was not really big money for European countries. He noted that political will was necessary to achieve the target. Do you agree that development funding faces more political hurdles than budgetary ones?

I absolutely agree. Of course, the reduction in public expenditure is a priority not only for Italy, but also for the other donor countries. I’m far from saying that we don’t need to think about belt-tightening or to reduce public funding. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the assignment of resources to cooperation is a political question. Italy has definitely made a clear choice: To lower the resources for cooperation.

In my opinion, this is wrong because in a global world economies are interdependent, as are the social phenomena. The investment in development is crucial for security and stability, too. It is vital to resolve some problems – like the clandestine immigration – by addressing root causes rather than [acting] when it’s too late.

Our country has substantially reduced development assistance and above all, the money allotted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, [through] which development strategies [can best be] implemented because [funding is somewhat flexible]. In any case, the resources of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Economy are much lower than is required by our [international] obligations.

Is Italy, in your view, going against current foreign assistance trends, considering the work of other donors?

The financial crisis and the need to reduce public expenditures are characteristic of all the donors. But we must acknowledge that important countries that are not exempted from crisis are investing in development regardless.

The United Kingdom made compulsory by law the target of 0.7 percent of the GDP as official development assistance. There is an increase in British development assistance. When Hillary Clinton assumed the role of secretary of state, she announced the doubling of U.S. foreign assistance [which was among President Barack Obama’s campaign promises, the editor]. Spain, strongly hit by the crisis, doubled or maybe tripled investments in development.

These examples show that cuts in a sector rather than in another one are political questions, choices among priorities.

Waiting for Italian Cooperation reform

The newly released DGCS action plan suggests reform of the Italian Cooperation system. “It is now clear that the agency entrusted with the responsibility for implementing programs and initiatives must be given adequate operational and management capacities, in terms of human resources and simplification of the reference administrative and accounting procedures,” the guidelines state. Can you explain why a reform is needed? Is there any concrete proposal?

It is a matter of fact that the law on Italian Cooperation is out-of-date. It was approved by parliament in 1987 before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The international scenario has changed significantly, especially in the field of cooperation. It has not only changed in the notion of development, but also the cooperation objectives, the means and the actors.

We have shifted from a concept of state-lead cooperation, in which countries define priorities, to a world where many other actors have to confront each other, to dialog, to work in coordination. I am referring to local authorities, NGOs, civil society, universities and enterprises. It is evident that the 1987 law didn’t take into account these evolutions. This is why there is a strong need for a reform. I regret to observe that at the moment there aren’t the essential requirements for a significant reform of Italian cooperation.

What we are trying to do is at least to pursue some regulations to correct current law when it is not coherent with current Cooperation needs. I hope that in the next months it will be possible to start a parliamentary debate on this issue. Over the years, some proposals have been discussed and we have made some steps ahead.

Is one of these steps the strengthening of local technical units to increase the efficiency of aid delivery?

The relationship among headquarters and local offices, called local technical units, is one of the focal points in the analysis we are carrying on. Of course, the strategy must be defined at the head office. The directorate-general must coordinate guidelines after listening to all the actors. But local offices play a fundamental role because they have a direct, instant and regular contact with beneficiary countries. Moreover, local technical units are better at identifying projects [if the strategy is to decentralize the implementation of aid projects]. This is a policy we hope to put in practice. However, it clashes with a crucial question that thwarts the fulfillment of decentralization: The shortage of resources. It is clear that to have efficient offices in foreign countries, resources are necessary.

Are you referring to financial resources? Human resources?

Both. To open local technical units, we need experts to lead them and enough funds for the work. Nowadays, we don’t have these resources. No human, no financial. This must be said very clearly. Then, once again, we have a well-defined needs, such as decentralization, but we can’t implement such policies because we lack the means, both financial and human.

Human resources: Few and old

The new action plan suggests DGCS is drafting hiring plans. Will you be able to make new employments?

One-and-a-half years ago, I presented a well-constructed proposal of reordering and reorganizing the Cooperation experts’ status. This is a vital sector because we are talking about technical experts who evaluate and sign projects. I presented this proposal to arrange an open competition and to hire new experts. One should bear in mind that the average age of our staff is 61. It is 20 years since we arranged the last open competition.

I’m sorely disappointed that no steps have been taken on this issue in one-and-a-half years. I’m not used to surrender right away. I’ll persevere to pursue an objective I consider crucial. Without a result on this issue, I don’t think we could do wide changes in Italian Cooperation.

With regard to human resources, is Italy in line with the others donor countries?

Absolutely not. We are by far the least-staffed development agency. The absolute priority is to re-balance the ratio of technical experts, accountants, administrative officials and evaluators. First of all, Italian Cooperation needs human resources.

Boosting the involvement of NGO

According to the action plan, the DCGS aims at enhancing the role of NGOs. In which way? Have you created any specific proposals, and are you going to strengthen NGO involvement in projects implementation? What about the relationship with local NGOs [in the field]?

It must be acknowledged that the dialogue with NGOs and with civil society has improved. Most importantly, it got stronger. There is a permanent platform that has worked in a very constructive way to find common ground and a common path for institutions and civil society. We want to help Italian NGOs to become stronger, more competitive on the international scene, more able to be present in developing countries, but also to work with local NGOs.

We believe that NGOs represent an added value for the implementation of projects. This platform [illustrates that point]: We stimulate NGOs to talk with us through their representatives – I think we have managed to do this. We meet the associations’ representatives periodically and we have a common agenda. We discuss development issues, aid effectiveness, ownership, but also we talk about technical questions involving the relationship among institutions and NGOs, such as criteria to access public funds.

Is your policy of involving NGOs open to foreign associations? Do you work with the local ones – can they take part in DGCS projects? Is that where the local technical units can help?

Absolutely. I believe that is not anymore possible in a global world, especially in the field of development, to restrict debates and dialogue to a national contest. It is obvious that we have more direct contacts with Italian NGOs, but many organizations are members of international consortia or local branches of global NGOs.

One of the advantages of working with NGOs is their relationship with local civil societies. Our aim is to put together all the resources we can find in Italy, in the beneficiary countries, but also internationally. Many local NGOs work with us. We tend to reach them through the Italian ones to further the dialogue among different civil societies.

Local technical units have close contacts with local civil societies and with Italian NGOs operating in country. But if local technical units haven’t got resources to operate, possibilities for action will remain limited.

Did you define priority sectors of interventions? Which are areas where Italian cooperation is going to work in the immediate future?

In the guidelines, we defined these priorities and also the financial instruments. We have given a lot of emphasis to Africa, followed by the Middle East and Mediterranean Africa. Then, there are the areas of crisis like Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan and Somalia. Our priorities are food security, health, environment and education. There are also some cross-sectoral issues like women’s empowerment, minors and disabled. A field in which we are investing a lot is the fight against genital mutilations.

But of course, the reduction of funds make it almost impossible to be coherent with this strategy.

The guidelines highlight a commitment to transparency. Are you developing new strategies to communicate DCGS actions and results?

We publish the guidelines, the amount of funds we rely on, all our decisions about projects, but also about criteria, methodologies and procedures. We believe that transparency means also verifying the projects’ results to see how public resources have been employed. [This is why] we created an evaluation unit. But even here there is a lack of resources.

Do you think that alternative funding strategies could be implemented?

I hope so. It is my duty to look for alternative resources involving the private sector and promoting further instruments, but we must not give up the public aid to development. It would be a great mistake.