Special Eurobarometer 375 European Commission Making a difference in the world: Europeans and the future of development aid REPORT Special Eurobarometer 375 / Wave 7.61 TNS opinion & social Fieldwork: September 2011 Publication: November 2011 This survey has been requested by the Directorate-General Development and cooperation and co-ordinated by Directorate-General for Communication (DG COMM Research and Speechwriting Unit). http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.
Special Eurobarometer 375 MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD: EUROPEANS AND THE FUTURE OF DEVELOPMENT AID Conducted by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of Directorate-General Development and Cooperation - EuropeAid Survey co-ordinated by Directorate-General Communication
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 7 1. GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT POLICY... 8 1.1 Perceived importance of development aid... 8 1.2 Target regions for European development aid... 13 1.3 Other important policy areas which affect developing countries... 18 2. EUROPEANS' VIEWS ON THE FUTURE OF EU DEVELOPMENT POLICIES... 23 2.1 Attitudes to aid commitments in the light of recent economic developments... 23 2.2 Democracy-related conditions for receiving development aid... 28 2.3 Linking development aid to other policies... 31 3. INCREASING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EU DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION... 35 3.1 The actors with whom cooperation should be strengthened... 35 3.2 How to improve aid effectiveness... 41 4. INFORMATION SOURCES AND PERSONAL COMMITMENT... 46 4.1 Preferred sources for gaining information on issues related to development policy and the global fight against poverty... 46 4.2 Level of personal commitment to supporting development... 52 CONCLUSION... 56 ANNEXES Technical specifications Questionnaire Tables 2
INTRODUCTION The commitment to fight poverty is a priority on Europe's agenda as a global actor: the European Union and its Member States provide more than half of official aid worldwide at 53.8 billion (2010) and the eradication of poverty is enshrined in EU treaties as the common goal of development policy. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were agreed in 2000 1 remain at the heart of development cooperation. The international community made a commitment to free fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanising condition of extreme poverty. Concretely, this declaration of active solidarity was translated into eight specific goals 2 : Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Achieve universal primary education Promote gender equality and empower women Reduce child mortality Improve maternal health Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Ensure environmental sustainability Develop a global partnership for development Good progress has been achieved towards some of these development goals so far; in particular, the world poverty rate is projected to fall below 15% by 2015, a significant improvement on the set goal of 23%. There has also been a decline in HIV infections and malaria deaths worldwide and enrolment figures in primary education are encouraging. However, much work remains to be done: Over 1 billion people still have insufficient access to food Maternal and child mortality is still unacceptably high in parts of the developing world 2.6 million people still have no access to improved sanitation The EU is committed to speeding up progress towards the MDGs and is responding to this need with its 1 billion MDG initiative, launched in 2010. This will give additional support to African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that have performed well in implementing aid, and will provide new targeted aid where the need is greatest: in fighting hunger, giving access to clean drinking water and sanitation, achieving better maternal health and reducing child mortality. 1 http://www.un.org/millennium/ 2 http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/millenium-development-goals/index_en.htm 3
At the same time, political and economic shifts in the world require new strategic thinking and policy in development cooperation. The Arab Spring has brought dramatic transformations to an entire region and reminded the world that there can be no sustainable development without human rights, democracy and the rule of law. In the European Union the economic and financial crisis continues to present a serious challenge to citizens and governments, and future development policy needs to reflect these changing circumstances. In addition to these political and economic shifts, the context of development cooperation is changing. New actors are become increasingly involved in development cooperation, including the private sector; large emerging countries are becoming active as donors and some of them are establishing their own cooperation agencies. In response to this changing global development context, the European Commission has presented on 13 October 2011 the 'Agenda for Change' of EU development policy and a new approach to EU budget support 3. Future EU spending should concentrate on sectors which are key for long-term and inclusive growth and target countries that are most in need of external support and where aid can make the most difference. Furthermore, the EU will explore innovative ways of financing development, such as the blending of grants and loans. The Commission will also encourage the EU and its Member States to jointly prepare strategies and programmes (so-called "joint programming") and to better divide labour amongst themselves in order to increase aid effectiveness. The European Commission has also proposed improvements in the EU approach to budget support 4. It intends to make budget support more effective and efficient in delivering development results by strengthening the contractual partnerships with developing countries. Budget support should contribute to the fight against corruption and fraud, and help countries to build their own financial resources, in order to reduce dependence on aid in the long run. Respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law will play a greater role in partnerships with developing countries. 3 See European Commission press release IP/11/1184 of 13 October 2011. The text of the Communication "An Agenda for change" is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/documents/agenda_for_change_en.pdf 4 Budget support involves funding that goes directly to government budgets in developing countries, coupled with an intense policy dialogue between the EU and the recipient countries. It includes performance assessment of the partner country's policies and capacity-building measures and is based on the principle that the EU and the recipient country work as partners and are mutually accountable. 4
November 2011 sees the Fourth High Level Conference on aid effectiveness in Busan, South Korea 5, taking place; a key event in the international development calendar to start to address current and future development needs within the changing global context. The conference will bring together partner country governments, donors, the private sector and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to discuss progress in global development commitments after the High Level Conferences on aid effectiveness held in Paris 6 (March 2005) and Accra 7 (September 2008), and, importantly, to discuss future required action. In this context, and particularly in view of the forthcoming summit in Busan the European Commission s Directorate-General Development and Cooperation - EuropeAid commissioned this survey to measure the attitudes of the European public towards development policy. This Eurobarometer was carried out by TNS Opinion & Social between 3 September and 18 September 2011. Some 26,856 Europeans aged 15 or over were interviewed face-to-face by the interviewers of the TNS Opinion & Social network (the interviewers asked the questions in the respondents' home). The methodology used is that of the Standard Eurobarometer of the Directorate-General Communication of the European Commission ( Research and Speechwriting Unit). A technical note concerning the interviews conducted by the institutes of the TNS Opinion & Social network is annexed to this report. It specifies the method used for these interviews as well as the confidence intervals 8. The general analysis and the socio-demographic analyses are based on the average results in the 27 Member States. This average is weighted so that it reflects the actual population of each Member State. ********** The Eurobarometer website can be consulted at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm We wish to thank the people interviewed throughout the European Union who gave their time to take part in this survey. Without their active participation, this survey would not have been possible. 5 http://www.aideffectiveness.org/busanhlf4/en.html 6 Second High Level Conferences on aid effectiveness, Paris, France, March 2005 7 Third High Level Conferences on aid effectiveness, Accra, Ghana, September, 2008 8 The results tables are included in the annex. It should be noted that the total of the percentages in the tables of this report may exceed 100% when the respondent can give several answers to the same question. 5
Note In this report, countries are referred to by their official abbreviation. The abbreviations used in this report correspond to: ABBREVIATIONS EU27 European Union - 27 Member States BE CZ BG DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LT LV LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK Belgium Czech Republic Bulgaria Denmark Germany Estonia Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Republic of Cyprus Lithuania Latvia Luxembourg Hungary Malta The Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden The United Kingdom 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A majority of Europeans (85%) believe that development aid is important, with 36% saying it is very important and 49% saying it is fairly important. However, the strength of this support for development aid has declined in the last year. The number of those who say that it is very important has dropped by 9 points from 45% in 2010. Most respondents (70%) think of sub-saharan Africa as the part of the world most in need of development aid to fight poverty. Other parts of the world considered important are the Middle East and North Africa (33%) and the Indian sub-continent (25%). Key policy areas where EU actions have the biggest impact on developing countries are considered to be trade and finance (18%), peace building (16%) and migration (16%) Most Europeans continue to support EU development policy spending, with 62% stating that the promise to increase aid to developing countries should be kept or increased further. This support has slightly declined by 2 points since June 2010 (64%). However, 32% of Europeans would break the promise to increase aid or even reduce the level of development aid (+3 points compared with June 2010). A large majority of Europeans (84%) believe that the EU should require developing countries to follow certain rules regarding democracy, human rights and governance as a condition for receiving EU development aid. There is also a very clear majority of 80% in favour of linking EU development aid to other European objectives in addition to fighting poverty; these policies could include, for example, management of migration flows, access to energy and raw materials and trade opportunities. When asked how to increase the impact of EU development aid through better cooperation, the majority suggested that the EU should work more closely with developing countries (42%) or developed countries outside the EU (36%). European public opinion was more divided on how to improve effectiveness: adopt common policies at EU level and being more transparent in publishing activities and results gained most support, but other items were also mentioned by substantial proportions. Approximately half of all Europeans are personally committed to supporting the needs of developing countries, 47% saying they would be willing to pay more for groceries or other products from developing countries. Conversely, 47% say they would not be willing to pay any more to support developing countries. 7
1. GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT POLICY 1.1 Perceived importance of development aid - Development aid is important for a large majority of respondents, although the strength of this support has declined - General perceptions of the importance of development aid are very positive, with 85% of respondents agreeing that helping people in developing countries is either important (36%) or fairly important (49%) 9. However, there are indications that support for development aid has begun to decline since the previous surveys: in particular, the number of respondents who say that help is very important has dropped from 45% in June 2010 to 36% in just over a year, following an increase of 6 points between May-June 2009 10 (39%) and June 2010 (45%). In December 2004, when Europeans from the EU25 were asked a slightly different question 11, an absolute majority of respondents answered that help is very important (53%). In this latest survey a greater proportion now believes that aid is fairly important (49%) compared to the previous survey (44%). 9 QD1. In your opinion, is it very important, fairly important, not very important or not at all important to help people in developing countries? 10 71.2 May-June 2009 8
Differences between Member States - Overall, the importance of helping people in developing countries is widely recognised across the Member States - When very important and fairly important responses are added together, a high degree of support for development policy as a priority is evident across the 27 Member States. In Sweden, Cyprus, Poland, Luxembourg, Germany, and Finland, more than 90% of respondents say that helping people in developing countries is important. Even in those Member States where results are lowest, the proportion of total important reaches 70% or more: in Hungary (75%), Bulgaria (75%), Estonia (74%) and Slovenia (71%) a clear majority say that helping people in developing countries is important. 11 62.2 December 2004: In your opinion, is it very important, fairly important, not very important or not at all important to help people in poor countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia, etc. to develop? 9
The bar chart above illustrates that highest levels of support for helping developing countries (answer very important") are recorded in Cyprus (74%), Sweden (69%), Luxembourg (59%) and Germany (53%). There is some variation in the degree of importance attached to helping people in developing countries. Support for development aid appears to be lower in a number of Member States where the majority believes that helping developing countries is fairly important ; for example, Portugal (62%), Poland (60%), Italy (59%), Czech Republic (59%). In a number of Eastern European Member States a significant minority of respondents also say that helping developing countries is not important ; in particular Slovenia (28%), Estonia (24%) and Hungary (23%). 10
Socio-demographic analysis - Education and political beliefs play a role in shaping responses - Education appears to influence how respondents regard the importance of helping people in developing countries; 44% of respondents who continued studying after the age of 19 say that development aid is very important, compared to 32% who left education between the age of 16-19. Those respondents who are still studying are the most likely to say that helping people in developing countries is very important, at 45%; this suggests that education can promote more enthusiasm around this topic. How respondents define their position on a left-right scale also gives some indication of how they are likely to answer this question. 45% of respondents who described their political views as on the left said that it was very important to help people in developing countries, compared to 34% of respondents in the centre and 31% on the right. Respondents with centre or right political views were more likely to describe helping people in developing countries as fairly important. 11
Other socio-demographic factors also appear to influence how much importance respondents place on helping people in developing countries, but less strongly. The ability of the respondent to pay bills illustrates how priorities change when there is less disposable income available: 39% of those who almost never have financial difficulties think that development aid is very important, compared with 30% of those who have these difficulties most of the time. Nevertheless, overall 79% of this group still say that helping people in developing countries is important. The age of respondents also seems to have some impact on their response: in particular, 41% of respondents between 15 and 24 years-old say that helping people in developing countries is very important, compared to 36% among 25 to 39-year-olds and 35% of respondents aged 40 and over. There was also strong support for the principle of development aid among respondents who think that EU development aid should come with certain conditions 12 attached. Close to nine in ten respondents of this group say it is important to help people in developing countries (88%). In comparison, 76% of those who are not in favour of conditional aid answered that helping people in developing countries is important. 12 See section 2.2: Democracy-related conditions for receiving development aid, page 28. 12
1.2 Target regions for European development aid - Sub-Saharan Africa is most often thought to be in greatest need of development aid - Respondents were asked to make a maximum of 3 choices from a list of geographical areas that might be thought to be most in need of development aid to help fight poverty 13. Sub-Saharan Africa was chosen by 70% of respondents, significantly ahead of the other options, and is thought to be the part of the world most in need of development aid to help fight poverty. Other areas were selected far less often, lagging some way behind sub-saharan Africa: the Middle-East and North Africa are in second place, with 33% of mentions, followed by the Indian sub-continent, with a quarter of European respondents citing this area. Other parts of the world were even less frequently mentioned: the Caribbean (17%), South East Asia (16%), non-eu areas of Eastern Europe (15%), Latin America (15%), and the Pacific and Oceania (6%). 13 QD2. Which of the following parts of the world do you think are most in need of development aid to help them fighting poverty? (A maximum of 3 answers could be chosen) 13
Differences between Member States - There are some major differences between Member States in their identification of the areas most in need of development aid - Respondents from 12 Member States express a strong preference (above the EU average of 70%) for sub-saharan Africa as the area most in need of development aid. These include many northern Member States, such as Denmark (88%), Germany (85%), Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg (82%), and the Netherlands (80%) but also Slovenia (79%), Cyprus and Sweden (78%), France, Ireland and Greece (72%). Member States less likely to mention this region include new Member States 14 in Eastern Europe; for example in Bulgaria and Romania 48% and 43% of respondents respectively cite sub-saharan Africa as the area in most need. Despite these significant differences between countries, sub-saharan Africa is the first answer given in every EU Member State. 14 The new Member States, known as the NMS12, are the 12 Member States which joined the European Union during the 2004 and 2007 enlargements. These are Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia. 14
The Middle East and North Africa is placed some distance behind sub-saharan Africa in terms of perceived need for development aid. This region was mentioned most in the Czech Republic, where 49% respondents selected this area, followed by Finland (48%), Cyprus (47%) and Greece (47%). In most Member States, except France, Sweden, Hungary and the Netherlands, respondents put the Middle East and North Africa second after sub-saharan Africa. Countries where respondents are least likely to mention this area include the most recent Member States from Eastern Europe. The Indian sub-continent is cited most often in Sweden (by 43%). In Sweden, France and the Netherlands the Indian sub-continent came in second place, ahead of the Middle East and North Africa and after sub-saharan Africa. The Caribbean is cited most often in France (28%), Sweden (24%) and Belgium (24%). South East Asia is cited most in Cyprus (33%), Finland (27%) and Luxembourg (24%). 15
Eastern Europe outside the EU is cited most in Austria (27%), Sweden (26%) and Denmark (23%). Latin America is cited most in Germany (27%) and Austria (20%). Finally, the Pacific and Oceania, which is cited least often across the EU by just 6% of European respondents, is mentioned most in Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia (12% in these three countries). 16
Socio-demographic analysis Socio-demographic factors do not appear to have much influence on how respondents prioritise different parts of the world in need of development aid. There are indications that respondents who studied beyond the age of 19 are more likely to select sub-saharan Africa than those who left education at 15 or younger, though both groups select sub- Saharan Africa as a key destination for development aid. Furthermore, respondents who studied past the age of 19 are slightly more likely to mention the Indian sub-continent than those whose education finished earlier. 17
1.3 Other important policy areas which affect developing countries - Trade and finance, peace-building and migration are all considered to be areas where the EU has an impact on developing countries - When other EU policy areas are considered in addition to development aid policy, no single area clearly stands out 15. Rather, several policy areas are mentioned, which might be interpreted as a sign that EU citizens recognise that developing countries are affected by a broad range of EU actions. 18% of respondents believe trade and finance is the policy area in which EU action has the biggest impact on developing countries. Other key EU policy areas that impact on developing countries are thought to be peace-building (16%), migration (16%) and agriculture (14%). Climate change (9%), the environment (6%), energy (6%) and transport (1%) are less regularly mentioned. At 11%, the don t know rate is relatively high. 15 QD4. In addition to development aid, in which policy area do you think EU actions have the biggest impact on developing countries? 18
Differences between Member States - There is a big variation in the perceived impact of different EU policy areas on developing countries - An analysis of the most frequently-mentioned EU policy areas shows that perceptions of their importance and impact differ widely from one country to another. These differences range from 31% of respondents in the Netherlands mentioning trade and finance to just 13% of respondents in Spain. Respondents in 13 Member States identify trade and finance as having the biggest impact on developing countries apart from development aid: Belgium (21%), the Czech Republic (28%), Denmark (26%), Estonia (23%), Ireland (24%), Hungary (26%), the Netherlands (31%) Austria (18%), Poland (18%) Slovenia (26%), Slovakia (20%), Sweden (27%) and the UK (20%). Responses appear to follow a geographical pattern, as trade and finance is more often cited as the policy that has most impact in northern European countries, whereas migration is more often mentioned in Mediterranean Member States. 19
Results for migration policy also vary widely, ranging from 28% in Italy to just 5% of respondents in Sweden. Interestingly, respondents from Mediterranean Member States in which issues of migration are regularly in the public debate, tend to believe that this policy area has the biggest impact; these Member States include Italy, Malta (26%), Cyprus (24%), Greece 23% and Spain (21%). In addition to these five Mediterranean countries, respondents in Latvia (21%) and Lithuania (20%) also say that migration has the biggest impact on developing countries. 20
The impact of peace-building on developing countries also sees widely differing percentages. In particular, 35% of respondents in Finland say that peace-building has a significant impact on developing countries. Respondents also highlight peace-building in a wide variety of other Member States, especially in Portugal 26%, Estonia 23%, Luxembourg 21%, Sweden 21%, and Malta 21%. Respondents in many other Member States attribute only minor importance to the impact of peace-building on developing countries: Ireland 11%, Austria 11%, Latvia 11% and Romania at just 9%. Agriculture is less frequently mentioned as a policy area having an impact on developing countries than trade and finance, migration and peace-building. The Member States where agriculture is considered to have the greatest impact are often those where internal EU agricultural policy has a particular impact; agriculture is prioritised in four Member States: Denmark (24%), Romania (20%), Germany (18%), and France (17%). 21
Socio-demographic analysis - Socio-demographic factors appear to play little role in how respondents prioritise different policy areas - For the most part, the socio-demographic factors that usually have some influence on respondents appear to have little effect on perceptions of the impact of different policy areas on developing countries. There is some indication that trade and finance are more likely to be mentioned by managers (23%), respondents who studied beyond the age of 19 (21%) and students (21%) than by house-persons or retired people (both 14%), or those who left school at the age of 15 or earlier (13%). Otherwise socio-demographic variables have only a marginal influence here. 22
2. EUROPEANS' VIEWS ON THE FUTURE OF EU DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 2.1 Attitudes to aid commitments in the light of recent economic developments - Support remains high for the current EU promise to increase the level of aid to developing countries - The EU promised to increase its assistance to 0.7% of its gross national income by 2015 as part of its commitment to reducing poverty 16. Asked what they think about this increase in the light of the financial and economic crisis 17, Europeans give answers which have remained relatively stable since June 2010, with 50% stating that we should keep our promise to increase aid to developing countries (unchanged since June 2010). In addition, there has been a decline of two points in the group which believes that we should increase aid to developing countries beyond what is already promised, from 14% to 12% in 2011; a very positive re-statement of support for development aid policy given the current economic situation. 16 http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/european-consensus/index_en.htm 17 QD3 The EU (the European Commission and Member States) has promised to increase the level of its aid towards developing countries. Given the current economic situation, which of the following propositions best describes your opinion? 23
There is a modest rise in the proportion of those who would break the promise to increase aid to developing countries, or who would even reduce aid. In June 2010, 14% of respondents believed that we should reduce aid to developing countries and this has increased by four points to 18%. However, this is partly offset by a slight reduction to 14% in the proportion of those who now state that we should not increase development aid compared to 15% in June 2010. Overall, the combined result for those would not increase aid and those who would reduce aid has risen from 29% in 2010 to 32% of respondents. 24
Differences between Member States - The current economic decline has affected support for aid in some Member States more than others - For the most part, respondents believe that aid promises should be upheld. The Member States where most respondents would opt to keep our promise to increase aid to developing countries are Luxembourg (67%), Sweden (67%), Finland (65%), and Denmark (60%), compared with 50% across the EU. There is less support among respondents in Bulgaria (30%) and Romania (35%). Even in the current difficult economic situation respondents from several Member States say that development aid levels should be increased beyond what is already promised ; respondents in Austria (25%) and Italy (17%) are most positive, compared with 12% across the EU, while there is more reluctance in Bulgaria, where only 3% wish to increase aid levels beyond the current commitments. There is a greater preference for freezing or reducing aid in only a few Member States. However, this is the majority view in Cyprus (50%) and Bulgaria (55%), and the opinion of a sizeable minority of respondents in Lithuania (44%), Ireland (45%), and Hungary (47%). Member States where most respondents would prefer to reduce aid to developing countries as we can no longer afford it include Bulgaria (30%), Lithuania (28%) and Cyprus (28%); while the Swedish public opinion is the least inclined to reduce levels of aid, with only 8% of respondents supporting a reduction. Respondents are most likely to opt for breaking the promise to increase aid in Bulgaria (25%), Ireland (23%) and Hungary (23%). Conversely, respondents in France are least likely to support freezing aid levels, with only 7% in favour. 25
26
Socio-demographic analysis - Socio-demographic factors appear to play little part in how respondents view commitments to development aid - The majority of respondents appear to share the belief that the promised aid levels should be maintained or increased where possible. There is some indication that younger respondents are a little more ambitious, as a marginally higher proportion advocate increasing development aid levels: 15% of 15-24 year olds would increase aid above the promised levels compared with 12% overall. There are also signs that older respondents are a little more cautious, with only 9% of 55+ year olds advocating increasing aid above promised levels. These older respondents were also marginally more inclined to reduce aid levels than other age groups, with 20% advocating a reduction compared to the overall level of 18%. Respondents who completed their education at 15 or younger were also more likely to advocate a reduction in development aid, at 24%. 54% of the respondents who state that helping developing countries is not important also say that development aid should be reduced. Conversely, 56% of the respondents who state that helping developing countries is important would also keep our promise to increase aid to developing countries. 27
2.2 Democracy-related conditions for receiving development aid - Most respondents believe that developing countries should meet certain conditions in order to receive EU development aid - After considering the importance of development aid and attitudes towards EU development aid commitments, Europeans were asked whether development aid should be offered with conditions attached in a specific area. A large majority of 84% believe that the EU should require developing countries to follow certain rules regarding democracy, human rights and governance as a condition for receiving EU development aid 18. For 48% of respondents there is a clear and decisive need for such development aid conditions (answer yes, definitely ), while 36% are more moderate (answer yes, to some extent ). Conversely, just 10% of Europeans are not in favour of this type of conditionality (3%, no, absolutely not, and 7% no, not really ). 18 QD5. Do you think that the EU should require developing countries to follow certain rules regarding democracy, human rights and governance as a condition for receiving EU development aid? 28
Differences between Member States - There is substantial consistency in views across the Member States - In general, respondents from across the Member States agree on the need for certain rules as a condition of receiving EU development aid: in all countries, more than seven in ten respondents are in favour of conditionality. There are some differences between Member States as to the degree of support for imposing conditions; around half of respondents in Austria, Portugal and Italy support the imposition of conditions to a certain extent (55%, 50%, 48%, respectively). By contrast 90% of respondents in Cyprus and two thirds in Luxembourg (67%) and Lithuania (65%) are definitely in favour of attaching conditions to EU aid. Opposition to conditionality is marginal in all countries, with the highest levels recorded in Denmark (15% for the total no ) and Belgium (13%). 29
Socio-demographic analysis - Socio-demographic factors do not appear to influence opinions on whether certain conditions should be attached to aid to developing countries - Opinions on this issue are reasonably consistent across age ranges, education levels and income levels: in all categories, a large majority of respondents think that the EU should require developing countries to follow certain rules as a condition for receiving EU development aid. 30
2.3 Linking development aid to other policies - A majority of respondents would like development aid to be linked to other policies - After asking respondents their views on imposing conditions on aid (i.e. conditions of better governance, democracy and human rights objectives), we also asked their views on whether aid should be linked to other policies (e.g. to other European objectives affecting that region or country such as the management of migration flows, access to energy etc.). Linking EU development aid to other European objectives in addition to fighting poverty is met with some enthusiasm: 80% of respondents would like development aid to be linked to other policies 19. While many approve of the idea in principle, the yes, definitely score for linking other policies to development aid (35%) is lower than the yes, definitely score for placing conditions on development aid (45%). 19 QD9. In addition to fighting poverty, do you think EU development aid should also be linked to other European objectives such as the management of migration flows, access to energy and raw materials or trade opportunities for the EU? 31
Differences between Member States - Overall levels of support for linking development aid to other policies are reasonably consistent across Member States - Combined levels of yes definitely and yes, to some extent responses are reasonably consistent across the Member States. Most states record a score of around 80% for linking aid to other European policies. There are a few exceptions, and respondents in Cyprus were especially enthusiastic, with 85% approving definitely and 12% approving to some extent. They were also by far the most likely to firmly approve the principle of conditionality. The yes definitely level exceeds 50% in just one other Member State, Slovenia (53%). In comparison, a quarter or less of respondents gave the same answer in Denmark (25%) and Poland (21%). Respondents in Romania were a little more sceptical than respondents from other Member States, although they still recorded a combined approval level of 68%. However, there were some marked differences between Member States in the number of don t know responses recorded, with high levels in Romania (24%), and Malta (19%), and this may be an indication that linking to other EU policies is difficult for some respondents to understand or appreciate. 32
33
Socio-demographic analysis - Socio-demographic factors do not appear to influence opinions on whether EU development aid should be linked to other European policies - While 80% of Europeans overall stated that EU development should be linked to other European objectives, respondents who left education before the age of 16 are a little less in favour of this option, with 75% stating Yes, compared to 83% of those who left school after the age of 19. In other respects socio-demographic factors do not appear strongly linked to opinions of whether EU development aid should be linked to other objectives. There is a strong correlation between preferences for linking to other policies and conditionality; 85% of the respondents who state that there should be a link between EU development aid and other policies are also in favour of setting conditions to development aid, compared with 58% of those opposed to conditionality. Interestingly, only 66% of the respondents who do not think development aid is important say that policies should be linked, compared with the European average of 80%; it might have been anticipated that this group would have been more in favour of linking policies. 34
3. INCREASING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EU DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION 3.1 The actors with whom cooperation should be strengthened - A majority of respondents believe cooperation should be strengthened between governments in preference to other types of organisations - This section addresses the question of how to increase the impact of development aid through better cooperation. Respondents were asked to choose up to two organisations, donors or countries with whom cooperation should be strengthened to increase the impact of EU development aid 20. For the most part direct cooperation with governments of developing countries (42%) is preferred to cooperation with other types of organisations. Cooperation with other developed countries outside the EU, such as the United States and Australia, was also supported by 36% of respondents. In third position, emerging economies attracted a 21% share. Non-governmental organisations were mentioned by 15% of Europeans as appropriate partners for increasing the impact of EU development aid; cooperation with civil society organisations (15%), companies (11%) and private foundations (9%) each only attracted modest support. 20 QD6. With whom should the EU strengthen its cooperation to increase the impact of its development aid? 35
Differences between Member States - Respondents in some Member States would prefer to strengthen cooperation with developing countries; others would rather work more closely with other developed countries - In general, respondents from some of the more economically-prosperous Member States believe that the EU should strengthen its cooperation with developing countries themselves; Sweden (67%), Germany (60%) and Denmark (59%) all show a strong preference for building cooperation with developing countries. Overall, this is the first answer given in 13 countries; often affluent Member States in the north of the EU. 36
Interestingly, respondents from many new Member States and countries in southern Europe are more likely to prefer the EU to strengthen its cooperation with other developed countries outside the EU, such as the United States and Australia to increase the impact of development aid. In particular, Cyprus (72%), Slovakia (54%), Lithuania (53%) and Greece (52%) would prefer to strengthen cooperation with other developed countries. This item is the most mentioned in 14 countries. The other items are less mentioned, and none of these alternatives are among the most frequent choices in any country. Emerging economies such as China and Brazil have some appeal as countries with whom the EU should strengthen cooperation in Cyprus (46%), Bulgaria (39%), Hungary (34%) and Greece (33%) 37
Civil society organisations such as NGOs attract considerable support in Luxembourg (36%) and Sweden (30%). Other alternative organisations such as companies and private foundations are generally less seen as important partners by Europeans. 38
Socio-demographic analysis - Socio-demographic factors have only marginal influence on opinions as to the actors with whom the EU should strengthen its cooperation - For the most part, responses are consistent across categories, and education, occupation and other socio-demographic factors generally do not influence opinions about who the EU should strengthen its cooperation with. There is some indication that managers (49%) and respondents who studied beyond the age of 20 (47%) are more likely to believe that EU cooperation should be strengthened with developing countries themselves, compared to an EU average of 42%. Respondents who almost never have difficulty in paying their bills are also more likely to believe that cooperation should be strengthened with developing countries, while the gap between those with financial problems from time to time and most of the time is smaller. In addition, respondents who have difficulties paying their bills from time to time are more likely to support greater cooperation with other developed countries (39%) than with developing countries (38%), as are those who answered that helping developing countries is not important (30% other developed countries, vs. 24% developing countries ). 39
3.2 How to improve aid effectiveness - Although all the solutions proposed to improve EU development aid effectiveness are mentioned by substantial proportions of respondents, adopting common policies is their first choice - When Europeans are asked how the EU could best improve its development aid effectiveness 21 there appears to be no clear consensus on the list of options. Respondents were allowed a maximum of two answers, and all the choices available appear to have some merit and received some support. Adopting common policies at EU level was supported by 35% of respondents, followed by being more transparent in publishing activities and results at 31%. Other popular initiatives included avoiding duplication of efforts through better coordination (25%) and giving direct financial support to the governments of developing countries based on the respect of certain conditions by these countries (24%). Strengthening bilateral cooperation between EU Member States was a less popular choice, though still mentioned by close to a fifth of Europeans (19%). 21 QD7. In your opinion, how could the EU best improve its effectiveness in terms of development aid? 41
Differences between Member States - A reasonable degree of consistency between Member States - In every Member State, the options for improving the EU s aid effectiveness all receive some degree of support. No one option is preferred to the others. Adopting common policies at EU level is selected as the first option in 14 Member States, led by Greece (44%) and Germany (43%). This approach is least popular in the UK (21%) and Sweden (23%). Respondents in 11 Member States chose being more transparent in publishing activities and results first, most often in Finland (44%), the Netherlands (43%), France (41%) and Denmark (41%). This option is least popular in Poland (10%). Respondents in Sweden and Finland express a stronger preference for avoiding duplication of efforts through better coordination than other Member States, with 57% and 48% choosing this option respectively, compared to the EU average of 25%. More than four in ten respondents in Cyprus also cite this item first (43%). Conversely, this option is chosen least in Malta (14%), Romania (12%), and Portugal (11%). Overall, respondents in four Member States think this is the best way for the EU to improve the effectiveness of its development aid. Giving direct financial support to the governments of developing countries based on the respect of certain conditions by these countries is most often chosen in Cyprus (38%), Slovakia (36%), Sweden (36%), the Czech Republic (34%) - where respondents put this approach first - and Luxembourg (33%). This option is least cited in Portugal (12%) and Lithuania (16%). 42
43
Socio-demographic analysis - Socio-demographic factors do not appear to influence opinions on how the EU could best improve its aid effectiveness - For the most part opinion is fairly consistent across education levels, occupation and social class. These socio-demographic factors are not strongly linked to opinions on how the EU could best improve its aid effectiveness. However, socio-demographic data does appear to have some influence on avoiding duplication of efforts through better coordination between EU Member States : those educated beyond the age of 19 are more likely to choose this method of improving effectiveness (30% compared to the average of 25%); as are respondents who describe themselves as high on the social scale (29%). Furthermore, respondents who say that helping developing countries is not important are slightly more likely to prefer measures which improve effectiveness by being more transparent in publishing activities and results ; 33% of these respondents preferred transparency, while 24% of the same group opted for adopting common policies at EU level. Among Europeans who say that development aid is not important, it appears that there is a degree of scepticism concerning transparency and the way European money is spent. 44
45
4. INFORMATION SOURCES AND PERSONAL COMMITMENT 4.1 Preferred sources for gaining information on issues related to development policy and the global fight against poverty - TV is relied on for information more than any other source - Respondents were asked which sources they would use if looking for information on issues related to development policy and the fight against poverty 22. This information can be important when communicating on these topics. Overall TV is the preferred medium, with more than three-quarters of Europeans saying they would look to it if they were searching for information on issues related to development policy and the global fight against poverty (Total TV, 77%). Within TV, the most relevant source is TV news (for 66% of respondents). Other popular TV information sources are documentaries (33%) followed by other shows (10%). The press is mentioned less than TV, with close to half of Europeans mentioning different publications (Total press, 47%). Within the press, the most relevant publications are the daily news press, mentioned by over a third of Europeans, ahead of weekly or monthly news press, which were only mentioned by 10%. The Internet is now seen as nearly as important as the press as a medium Europeans would use if they were looking for information on issues related to development policy and the global fight against poverty, with more than four in ten Europeans viewing websites of various kinds (Total Internet, 45%). News websites are the most popular, at 31%,, followed by a surprisingly high proportion of 18% viewing specialised development websites. Interestingly, specialist blogs on development (6%) and social networking sites (6%) are not regarded as very relevant sources for information on development. Close to a fifth of Europeans (19%) mentioned radio among the media they would use if they were looking for information on issues related to development policy and the global fight against poverty. 22 QD8. If you were looking for information on issues related to development policy and the global fight against poverty which of the following sources would you use? 46
TOTAL TV 77% TV news 66% TV documentaries 33% Other shows on TV 10% TOTAL PRESS 47% News daily press 37% News weekly or monthly press 10% Specialised press on development 9% TOTAL INTERNET 45% News websites 31% Specialised websites on development 18% Specialised blogs on development 6% Online social networks 6% Generalist blogs 4% Radio 19% Other (SPONTANEOUS) 1% Not interested in development policy/ Don t seek for such 4% information (SPONTANEOUS) DK 1% 47
Differences between Member States - Information sources vary across Member States - 77% of Europeans mention television, and in almost all countries TV is the most popular information source for issues relating to development. In Austria, Portugal and Germany 90% of respondents or more receive their information on development policy through television programmes. The greatest reliance on television is found in Portugal (91%), where relatively few respondents cite the press (20%) or the Internet (17%). Sweden is an exception: here Internet websites are marginally preferred to TV, with 76% citing the Internet compared to 75% mentioning TV. 48
The press is mentioned by 47% of respondents, with the highest proportions describing this as a source of information on development policy in Austria (75%), Finland (70%), the Netherlands (69%) and Sweden (68%). Interestingly, in a few Member States a range of media sources were mentioned frequently, not just the press: in particular, 69% of respondents from the Netherlands cited press publications and 75% the Internet; in Finland 70% mentioned the press and 65% the Internet, and in Sweden 68% the press and 76% the Internet. However, in other Member States respondents often prefer one information source over another: in Austria 75% mentioned press publications and just 34% the Internet; similarly in Germany 67% cited press publications and 37% the Internet. 49
The Internet was mentioned by 45% of respondents across the whole European Union, with respondents in Denmark (77%), Sweden (76%), the Netherlands (75%) and Finland (65%) most likely to use Internet websites to find information on development issues. As previously noted, these respondents often mention a range of information sources and respondents in these Member States can perhaps be characterised as more active consumers of information. The Internet is now a more widely-cited information source than the press in a number of countries including Latvia, Malta, Denmark, the UK, Poland and Slovenia. However, in nine Member States less than 40% of respondents say they would use the Internet, with the lowest score in Portugal, at only 17%. The radio was most often mentioned in Estonia (37%), Austria (31%) and Germany (30%), and least often in Portugal (4%), and Italy (6%). 50
Socio-demographic analysis - Socio-demographic factors heavily influence the choice of information sources - There are substantial differences in the information sources chosen, reflecting sociodemographic factors. In general, the different information sources are cited by comparable proportions of men and women, except Internet sources, mentioned by more men (49%) than women (41%). The Internet is less likely to be mentioned by respondents aged 55 and over (only 22% compared to the EU average of 45%); however, among 15-24-year-olds the Internet accounts for 68% of the information sources mentioned, just after TV (69%). These younger respondents are less likely to mention press sources (37%, compared with 47% at EU level), and they are also less likely to mention TV (69% compared with 77% at EU level). Education also plays a role, as 74% of respondents who are currently studying mention the Internet as an information source, whereas this is only the case for 25% of those who left school at the age of 15 or earlier. 51
4.2 Level of personal commitment to supporting development - Close to half of respondents would pay more for products from developing countries to support the people living in those countries - Respondents were asked if they would be prepared to pay more for groceries or other products from developing countries to support people living in those countries 23. Close to half of those who expressed an opinion said they would be willing to spend up to 5% extra (33%) or 6-10% extra (10%) or over 10% extra (4%). Conversely, the same proportion said that they would not be ready to pay more (47%). 23 QD10. Would you be prepared to pay more for groceries or other products from developing countries to support people living in these countries (for instance for fair-trade products)? 52
Differences between Member States - The readiness to pay more for groceries and other products to help people living in developing countries varies substantially from one country to another - The Member States in which respondents are most willing to pay more for groceries or products from developing countries are the Netherlands (80%), Sweden (76%), Luxembourg 74%, Finland 69%, Denmark 66% and Germany 63%. Standard of living appears to play an important role in this respect, as these are among the more affluent countries in the EU. However, in 16 Member States more than 50% of respondents would not pay more for groceries or products from developing countries. Unsurprisingly, these are countries which have been hit hard by the financial and economic crisis, most strikingly Portugal ( No, you are not ready to pay : 73%), Hungary and Bulgaria (71%), and Latvia (70%). 53
Socio-demographic analysis - Several socio-demographic factors influence willingness to pay more for groceries or other products from developing countries - Socio-demographic factors that reflect levels of disposable income do appear to influence how prepared respondents are likely to be to pay more for groceries and other products from developing countries. In total 68% of managers would pay more for products, compared with just 35% of house-person and 36% of the unemployed. Perhaps surprisingly, 60% of students also state that they would be prepared to pay more. This is also the case for 61% of respondents who left school at the age of 20 or later, compared with just 32% of those who left the school before 16. This is understandable, as educational levels are often closely related to standard of living. Two-thirds of respondents who regularly have difficulty paying bills say they would not pay more (66%), compared to the EU average of 47%. Respondents who think that helping developing countries is important are generally more willing to pay more, with 52% stating Yes compared to the average of 47%. Those who think that helping developing countries is not important are the most likely to say that they would not be ready to pay more (76%). Europeans who are opposed to attaching conditions to development aid are also sometimes more willing to pay more for groceries and other products with 15% prepared to pay 6%-10% more compared to the average of 10%. However, on the whole, respondents opposed to conditions are less generous, with 50% unwilling to pay more compared to the average of 47%. 54
55
CONCLUSION The objective of this survey was to explore perceptions of EU development aid and to gauge levels of personal commitment and interest among the European public. Respondents in the 27 EU Member States were asked a series of different questions in order to reveal their general perceptions of development aid, their views on how EU development policies should be shaped, their opinions on how to improve the effectiveness of development aid cooperation and, importantly, their personal commitment to helping people in developing countries. The results show that a large majority of Europeans believe that development aid is important (85%). However, while support for development aid appears strong there has been a noticeable decline since June 2010 when the question was last asked. In 2010, 45% said they believed development aid was very important while in 2011 this figure dropped to 36%, a fall of 9 points. Based on these figures it appears that Europeans are re-examining their priorities on this issue in a less certain economic climate. The survey sought to identify some general perceptions about development aid, including which parts of the world respondents believed were most in need of development aid. A clear majority (70%) think that sub-saharan Africa is the priority in the fight against poverty. By comparison, other parts of the world are less likely to be considered, with the next most important regions being the Middle East and North Africa (33%) and the Indian sub-continent (25%). When considering EU development aid commitments, a majority of Europeans believe it is important to keep to current promises to increase aid (62%), and, even in the current difficult economic climate, 12% would like to increase the level of development aid beyond what has been promised. While many Europeans thus supported the EU s commitments, there was also a large minority of 32% who would prefer to break the promise to increase aid or even to reduce the level of development aid to developing countries. This opinion was more widespread in some countries: in Lithuania (44%), Ireland (45%), Hungary (47%), Cyprus (50%), and Bulgaria (55%), high proportions of respondents expressed a preference for freezing or reducing aid levels. With regard to the shaping of future EU development policy, respondents generally showed a preference for some form of conditionality to be attached to aid: a majority of 84% believed that developing countries should follow certain rules regarding democracy, human rights and governance as a condition for receiving EU development aid. 56
Similarly, 80% of Europeans are in favour of establishing a link between EU development aid and other European objectives, for example, management of migration flows, access to energy and raw materials and trade opportunities. While there is broad approval for both governance-related conditionality and linking to other EU objectives, there is, on balance, more support for conditionality (answer yes, definitely ). At a time when many Europeans are reassessing the intensity of their support for development aid, the emphasis on democracy, human rights and rule of law may prove to be an important element in maintaining support for development aid in future. This may also be related to the events of the Arab Spring, where movements for reform and democracy have swept an entire region. Respondents were then asked how the impact of EU development aid could be increased by improved cooperation with different partners (countries, organisations, etc.). There was no clear consensus on how this should be achieved, or with which partners. For some Europeans, developing countries themselves are the most appropriate partners, for others, other developed countries from outside the EU are most appropriate. Aid effectiveness emerges as an area in which Europeans express overall no strong positions and priorities, maybe due to a lack of background knowledge on the subject. As a measure of their personal commitment to development aid, respondents were asked if they would be willing to pay more for groceries and other products from developing countries. According to this simple test, approximately half (47%) of all Europeans are willing to pay up to at least 5% more for products from developing countries as a sign of personal support for those countries. However, an identical proportion also said that they would be unwilling to pay more. Therefore, while many Europeans support the principle of development aid, many also currently see it as impossible to make a personal financial commitment to development and fighting poverty outside the EU. 57
ANNEXES
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Development Aid Effectiveness TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Between the 3rd of September and the 18th of September 2011, TNS Opinion & Social, a consortium created between TNS plc and TNS opinion, carried out the wave of the EUROBAROMETER, on request of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directorate-General for Communication, Research and Speechwriting. The SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER 375 is part of wave and covers the population of the respective nationalities of the European Union Member States, resident in each of the Member States and aged 15 years and over. The basic sample design applied in all states is a multi-stage, random (probability) one. In each country, a number of sampling points was drawn with probability proportional to population size (for a total coverage of the country) and to population density. In order to do so, the sampling points were drawn systematically from each of the "administrative regional units", after stratification by individual unit and type of area. They thus represent the whole territory of the countries surveyed according to the EUROSTAT NUTS II (or equivalent) and according to the distribution of the resident population of the respective nationalities in terms of metropolitan, urban and rural areas. In each of the selected sampling points, a starting address was drawn, at random. Further addresses (every Nth address) were selected by standard "random route" procedures, from the initial address. In each household, the respondent was drawn, at random (following the "closest birthday rule"). All interviews were conducted face-to-face in people's homes and in the appropriate national language. As far as the data capture is concerned, CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) was used in those countries where this technique was available.
ABBR. COUNTRIES INSTITUTES N INTERVIEWS FIELDWORK DATES POPULATION 15+ BE Belgium TNS Dimarso 1028 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 8.939.546 BG Bulgaria TNS BBSS 1006 03/09/2011 12/09/2011 6.537.510 CZ Czech Rep. TNS Aisa 1069 03/09/2011 14/09/2011 9.012.443 DK Denmark TNS Gallup DK 1002 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 4.561.264 DE Germany TNS Infratest 1582 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 64.409.146 EE Estonia Emor 1000 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 945.733 IE Ireland Ipsos MRBI 1015 03/09/2011 16/09/2011 3.522.000 EL Greece TNS ICAP 1000 03/09/2011 16/09/2011 8.693.566 ES Spain TNS Demoscopia 1004 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 39.035.867 FR France TNS Sofres 1046 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 47.756.439 IT Italy TNS Infratest 1043 03/09/2011 17/09/2011 51.862.391 CY Rep. of Cyprus Synovate 506 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 660.400 LV Latvia TNS Latvia 1014 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 1.447.866 LT Lithuania TNS Gallup Lithuania 1031 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 2.829.740 LU Luxembourg TNS ILReS 502 03/09/2011 17/09/2011 404.907 HU Hungary TNS Hungary 1015 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 8.320.614 MT Malta MISCO 500 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 335.476 NL Netherlands TNS NIPO 1002 03/09/2011 17/09/2011 13.371.980 Österreichisches 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 AT Austria Gallup-Institut 1018 7.009.827 PL Poland TNS OBOP 1000 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 32.413.735 PT Portugal TNS EUROTESTE 1035 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 8.080.915 RO Romania TNS CSOP 1050 03/09/2011 12/09/2011 18.246.731 SI Slovenia RM PLUS 1024 03/09/2011 17/09/2011 1.759.701 SK Slovakia TNS Slovakia 1013 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 4.549.955 FI Finland TNS Gallup Oy 1003 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 4.440.004 SE Sweden TNS GALLUP 1020 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 7.791.240 UK United Kingdom TNS UK 1328 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 51.848.010 TOTAL 26.856 EU27 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 408.787.006 For each country a comparison between the sample and the universe was carried out. The Universe description was derived from Eurostat population data or from national statistics offices. For all countries surveyed, a national weighting procedure, using marginal and intercellular weighting, was carried out based on this Universe description. In all countries, gender, age, region and size of locality were introduced in the iteration procedure. For international weighting (i.e. EU averages), TNS Opinion & Social applies the official population figures as provided by EUROSTAT or national statistic offices. The total population figures for input in this post-weighting procedure are listed above. Readers are reminded that survey results are estimations, the accuracy of which, everything being equal, rests upon the sample size and upon the observed percentage. With samples of about 1,000 interviews, the real percentages vary within the following confidence limits: Observed percentages 10% or 90% 20% or 80% 30% or 70% 40% or 60% 50% Confidence limits ± 1.9 points ± 2.5 points ± 2.7 points ± 3.0 points ± 3.1 points