En ny evaluering af internationale eksperter fælder en stenhård dom over VK-regeringens abrupte stop for dansk udviklingsbistand til det ludfattige Malawi i 2002 – og afdækker de dramatiske omstændigheder omkring bruddet.
Kritikken falder i en ny fælles evaluering, hvor 4 donorer er gået sammen om at lade uvildige eksperter eksaminere, hvordan de er sluppet fra at nedtrappe deres bistand i 5 u-lande med sigte på at trække sig helt/næsten ud; se også
http://u-landsnyt.dk/indhold.asp?ID=17418&mode=Nyhed
Af et særligt afsnit om Malawi og Danmark fremgår det, at afgørelsen om at lukke bistanden ned ensidigt blev truffet af den danske regering uden nogen form for forhandlinger med, endsige information til malawianerne: de fik det at vide, dagen før beslutningen blev bekendtgjort officielt i januar 2002.
Ikke nok med det. Malawis regering sendte kort efter sin udenrigsminister og undervisningsminister til København for – rent ud sagt – at trygle Fogh Rasmussens nytiltrådte regering om at omgøre eller i det mindste mildne beslutningen, som fra malawiansk side blev kaldt katastrofal for især landets undervisningssektor.
Netop i denne sektor opererede et vellykket dansk-støttet program med vægt på mellemskole-uddannelse (secondary education).
Ministrene fik imidlertid ikke mulighed for at møde udenrigsminister Per Stig Møller (K) trods et udtalt ønske herom – de fik at vide, at han var i udlandet, men det var de nu ikke så sikre på…
Da de opnåede foretræde for Danidas dav. chef, Carsten Staur, blev de ifølge referatet i evalueringen mødt af en iskold skulder, eller som der står, “his shoulder was colder than the winter” (vi taler her om en dansk embedsmands angivelige behandling af bl.a. et afrikansk lands udenrigsminister, red.).
Der var ikke noget at snakke om ifølge Staur. Intet at komme med fra dansk side. Beslutningen var truffet.
Hele det møjsommeligt opbyggede og mangefacetterede danske bistandsprogram til et af vore udvalgte programsamarbejdslande skulle lukkes ned på blot 5 måneder. Ministrene drog tomhændede og nedbøjede hjem.
Sagen Malawi-Danmark fremdrages i evalueringen som et eksempel på, at man ikke skal gøre den slags uplanlagt, over hals og hoved og som et ensidigt diktat.
Folkene bag evalueringen (bl.a. Chr. Michelsen Instituttet i Norge) gør samtidig opmærksom på, at de ifølge deres opgavebeskrivelse (Terms of Reference) opsigtsvækkende nok IKKE har haft adgang til at interviewe “danske regeringsrepræsentanter” om beslutningen.
Det fremgår under alle omstændigheder ikke af landestudiet, hvem der var initiativtager til at udpege netop Malawi til bortvisning fra den danske samarbejdskreds. Om det var et politisk diktat eller Danidas ledelse, der stod bag.
Danida-chefens iskolde (nogle vil vel sige nærmest ydmygende, red.) modtagelse af de 2 malawianske ministre svækker ikke ligefrem antagelsen om, at det var her initiativet kom fra – og senere blev konfirmeret af VK-regeringen.
Det skal tilføjes, at en stribe af de største bistandsydere i dag er aktive i Malawi, herunder Verdensbanken.
Også Norge og Sverige er på plads i det langstrakte land ved Malawi-søen, som ikke blot er det sydlige Afrikas fattigste nation, men p.t. verdens 12. fattigste overhovedet (godt halvdelen af de 14 mio. indbyggere lever under fattigdomsgrænsen).
OGSÅ NEJ FRA TØRNÆS
VK-regeringen har derimod aldrig villet genindlemme Malawi i kredsen af Danidas programsamarbejdslande, selv om lejligheden var der for et par år siden, da man ønskede at udvide denne kreds og direkte ledte efter et land på det afrikanske kontinent.
Det blev i stedet et ubeskrevet blad i dansk bistand, nemlig den ørkenprægede tidl. franske koloni i Vestafrika, Mali, der kom med i “Danida-klubben”, ikke mindst på foranledning af udviklingsminister Ulla Tørnæs (V).
Kilder i Danida har i den anledning tidligere samstemmende givet udtryk for, at det med den siddende regering – og en Venstre-minister – var politisk umuligt at omgøre den tidligere beslutning, fordi det kunne tolkes som en erkendelse af, at bortvisningen af Malawi i 2002 var en fejl.
Som en kilde sagde: “Tørnæs havde chancen for at gøre det godt igen, men forpassede den. Til hendes forsvar kan man sige, at hun er så svag en minister internt i regeringen, at hun aldrig var kommet igennem med det, hvis hun havde villet”.
“Det ville ellers være nemt at gå igang igen dernede. Landestrategien rakte frem til 2005 og den kunne for så vidt bare være trukket op af skuffen og opdateret. I Mali starter vi på bar bund – og i et fransk-talende land, hvor det er svært at skaffe danske rådgivere”.
En anden kilde føjede bramfrit til: “Du kan også se det i forhold til Kenya. Nu er vi gud døde mig blevet dér, næsten uanset hvad. Og de (kenyanerne) har ellers budt os et og andet. Malawi er langt fattigere end Kenya og de har ikke nær så mange donorer som Kenya. Hvorfor i alverden skulle DE så straffes på denne her ydmygende måde og ikke kenyanerne. Det er politik og har intet med god bistand at gøre”.
——–
VI BRINGER HER evalueringens afsnit om Danmark og Malawi som DOKUMENT:
Denmark
To most Malawians the decision by Denmark in January 2002 to discontinue its aid programme came as a thunderbolt out of the nearly blue sky.
Only in June 2001 had the Danish Embassy finalised a new country strategy for Malawi covering the period up until 2005 and all was set for its implementation.
Admittedly, there had been a diplomatic episode in late 2001 which led to the departure of the Danish ambassador after the Malawi government had requested
that he be replaced.
But most circles saw withdrawing from Malawi altogether as a reaction out of proportion to the nature of the diplomatic turbulence.
For some time not only Denmark but the entire donor community had been concerned about governance issues and corruption. This had repeatedly been brought to the attention of the government, but to no avail it seemed in the eyes of the donors.
As far as Denmark was concerned there had been persistent problems in the education sector in particular and some money remained unaccounted for.
A particularly egregious example of corruption was the committee for Inter-
Party Peace and Unity Technical Committee that had been set up after violent clashes between the youth wings of party organisations in connection with the 1999 elections.
The secretary-general of the UDF (politisk parti, red.) had chaired that committee. When the money could not be accounted for it led to a court case. This probably aggravated the bad relations with the incumbent party.
These problems of governance were a continuous source of friction and came to a head in October 2001. Ostensibly, at about that time the Danish ambassador had made a jocular though derogatory remark about then President Muluzi at an internal meeting in the Embassy.
Allegedly, an Embassy employee – a Malawian national – had reported the remark to senior government officials who apparently conveyed it further to the Office of the President and Cabinet.
The ambassador was then summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and thereafter the Malawi government requested Copenhagen to replace him. He left Malawi on 17 October 2001.
There is a perception in Malawi, even among senior civil servants, that the “misunderstanding”, as it is often referred to, between the ambassador and the President, was the real reason why Denmark decided to phase out its development assistance to Malawi.
However, the Danish general election on 21 November 2001 had brought to incumbency a centre-right coalition government after an election campaign that had signalled substantial aid cuts.
Upon taking office the new government decided to cut the previous governments aid budget proposal for 2002 by DKK 1,5 billion, a considerable amount which represented about 10 percent of the total aid budget. One-third of the amount would affect bilateral co-operation.
It was left to the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to make specific proposals as to how and where the cuts would be made. After deliberations on which countries to drop from the list of so-called programme countries, a decision was finally made on 29 January 2002 to delete Malawi along with Eritrea and Zimbabwe.
Incidentally, the Malawians did not like being put in the same group with Eritrea and Zimbabwe: “How could they put us in the category with those rogue states?” Other country candidates in the discussion were Burkina Faso, Kenya and Uganda.
Ultimately, the review process resulted in the reduction of programme countries from 18 to 15.
Although it seems plausible, it is a matter of speculation whether the diplomatic incident that led to the departure of the Danish ambassador had any effect on the selection of Malawi among the three casualties of the budget cut.
The persistent governance and corruption problems were the main factors that tipped the scales in Malawis disfavour, although at the time Malawi did not perform so badly on governance and corruption indicators compared to other countries in the region, as suggested by Malawis ranking on Transparency Internationals corruption perception index.
It also warrants mention that there was no strong pro-Malawi lobby in Denmark that could have exerted pressure on the government to spare that country. It was only after the decision had been taken and when it was being implemented that a public debate emerged in the Danish media.
Particular attention was given to poor women who by Denmarks exit had been left in the lurch and landed in indebtedness through a disrupted micro credit scheme for poultry production.
On 29 January 2002 the Danish government issued an official statement on its review of Denmarks development and environment co-operation with developing countries, including a specific section on Malawi giving the reasons why that country was dropped as a partner.
The statement warrants quotation at length (authors unofficial translation):
Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Redegørelse for Regeringens Gennemgang af Danmarks Udviklings- og Miljøsamarbeide med Udviklingslandene [Statement on the Governments Review of Denmarks Development and Environment Co-operation with Developing Countries], Copenhagen, 29 January 2002.
The STATEMENT:
“Danish aid has so far been sought given as sector programme support in close collaboration with the recipients and other donors. Experiences show thus far, however, that the sector programme concept does not seem feasible in Malawi.
The countrys weak administrative structures in combination with a fragile democracy and a correspondingly weak civil society have led to an increasing need for reordering priorities with regard to interventions, greater decentralisation and the inclusion of the private sector, and not least greater control of the implementation of the aid programme.
Support to the educational sector has encountered a number of problems owing to weaknesses in the Ministry of Education combined with an increasing party politicisation of the sector. However, the Ministry has declined a Danish offer of technical assistance to mitigate the institutional weaknesses.
Support to vocational training has yielded results in terms of institution-building but its effect on the labour market and its sustainability are in question. It has also been difficult to arrive at a common understanding with the Malawian authorities about the use of macro-financial support.
Through donor collaboration great efforts have been made to establish acceptable
procedures for economic and budget management and satisfactory measures towards a better distribution of income.
The results, however, have not been satisfactory, and Denmark has, therefore, along with the UK, chosen not to disburse budget support in the last quarter of 2001.
The Danish ambassador to Malawi was recalled for consultations in late 2001 in order to assist in a further clarification of the circumstances that had led to accusations against him to the effect that he had made derogatory remarks about Malawis president.
Apart from the personal motives of a former employee at Denmarks Embassy in the country it is also possible that the accusations against the ambassador may be attributable to his initiative – as part of regular procedures regarding ongoing aid activities in Malawi – to audit a specific project, which clearly indicates that Danish aid funds are being misused by politically influential persons in Malawi.
The relevant persons have been asked to comment upon the prepared audit report.
Further steps have been taken to look closer at the use of other Danish aid funds in Malawi. Other donors are also making investigations based on suspicions of the misuse of aid money.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE STATEMENT
The government of Malawi has not shown any will to ensure that the principles of
the rule of law are upheld, including respect for differences of political opinion and
freedom of expression.
The opposition is systematically being intimidated. Corruption is a fast increasing problem, and there is suspicion of the misuse of aid funds from Denmark as well as from other donors. This notwithstanding, the government of Malawi has declined offers of technical assistance to mitigate the institutional weaknesses.
Malawi is one of the worlds poorest countries and Danish aid has been orientated towards poverty reduction, but the collaborative relationship is currently characterised by very difficult conditions.
• Development co-operation with Malawi will be discontinued and the countrys status as a partner will cease;
• No new activities will be initiated, neither in the development nor the environment sectors, which in 2002 will mean savings, respectively, of DKK 127 million and (sidste ord mangler, red.)” (statement slut)
DEN OFFICIELLE BEGRUNDELSE
Apart from direct communication to Malawis Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a
two-page press statement was issued by the Danish Embassy in Lilongwe on
the following day, 30 January 2002, citing the main reasons why Malawi was
dropped from the list of partner countries.
Three points related to governance were listed:
A weak administration, combined with a fragile democracy and a weak civil society, had made it difficult to implement sector-wide approaches which formed the basis of Danish government-to-government co-operation programmes.
The educational sector was mentioned specifically as particularly difficult. In terms of macro-economic support inadequate control procedures had compelled Denmark to suspend budget support as from the 4th quarter of 2001;
In the political arena increasing intolerance had been witnessed, including politically motivated violence, systematic intimidation of the opposition and attempts to circumscribe the independence of the judiciary;
Corruption was seen to be on the increase and the misuse of Danish and other donor funds was suspected.
On the basis of the above points of criticism the statement said that Denmark had decided to drop Malawi as a programme country. However, the statement contained a reassurance that all ongoing activities would be completed “in an appropriate manner”.
The ToR (Terms of Reference) precluded (forhindrede, afskar) the Malawi country study team to undertake interviews about the exit decision with Danish government representatives in Copenhagen.
BESTYRTELSEN i MALAWI
Nevertheless, it is warranted to highlight the responses and perceptions on the Malawian side to illustrate the drama with which the Malawians viewed the exit decision.
The Malawi High Commissioner to Denmark had been informed in advance of the impending decision at a meeting with the head of Danida on 28 January 2002, one day prior to the formal decision by the Danish government.
The Malawian government was very upset about the decision to the extent that both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Education were sent to Copenhagen in February 2002 to plead with the Danish government to reconsider its decision.
However, they were not allowed to see the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs who was said to be out of the country; “if he were in Copenhagen he must have been hiding”, according to an interviewee.
They met instead on 20 February 2002 with the head of Danida, whose “shoulder was colder than the winter”, as an informant put it.
In that meeting the Danish position was expounded and the two Malawian ministers responded by conceding that there were governance problems but denying that corruption was a problem and that the opposition was intimidated.
They underscored the adjustment problem Malawi would face as a result of the abruptness of the phase out. Although a palpable overstatement, the Minister of Education went as far as to claim that the abrupt cessation of Danish support might cause the entire educational system to collapse.
The two ministers returned to Malawi disappointed and dismayed.
Malawi was faced with a fait accompli based on a unilateral decision, although informal warnings had been communicated through other donors.
Also, in November 2001 a Malawian newspaper carried a report to the effect that Denmark was scaling down its aid programme due to corruption and mismanagement of donor funds, and was possibly poised to withdraw altogether
(Malawi News 3–9 November 2001).
SLUT
RESUME OG BISTANDENS HISTORIE:
I et resume af sagen hedder det:
Denmark has a history of aid to Malawi from the 1960s during the Kamuzu Banda era. Areas of intervention included vocational schools, health, rural water supply, etc.
However, the increasing authoritarianism of the Banda regime made it untenable to maintain an aid programme, which led to its suspension in 1992.
After the democratic opening in the mid-1990s Denmark decided to resume aid activities and selected Malawi as a partner country in 1995. An Embassy was opened in 1996.
Danish assistance to Malawi (1996–2000) was focused on agriculture (animal husbandry and irrigation), education (mainly secondary level and vocational training), the environment (urban environment and support to environment funds), telecommunications; balance-of-payment support; as well as the promotion of democratisation and human rights as cross-cutting concerns.
Total disbursements during the period amounted to DKK 671,3 million for all areas (Danish MFA/Danida/NCG 2001:x).
According to the 2001–2005 country strategy support to the telecommunications
sector would be phased out and replaced by roads while support for secondary education and agriculture would continue.
Assistance to democratisation and human rights activities was stated as a priority, not in the form of sector support but rather as cross-cutting concerns (Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malawi: Strategy for Danish-Malawian Development Co-operation 2001–2005, 3rd revised draft).
Danish-Malawian development co-operation took an unexpected turn in 2002
when Denmark decided to discontinue its bilateral assistance programme altogether.
The only official forewarning was the suspension of Danish general budget support in the last quarter of 2001 due to concerns about economic management.
Only in June 2001 had the Embassy completed the final draft of a new country strategy (2001–2005), with indicative grant figures of DKK 155 million per year. But its implementation was overturned by political developments in Denmark.
The new Danish government that took office after the November 2001 elections announced substantial cuts in the aid budget and a revision of the list of partner countries.
With the January 2002 decision to drop Malawi as a bilateral programme partner country existing projects and programmes were to be phased out within five months: by 30 June 2002 all programme activities were to cease.
The Danish Embassy was closed one month earlier. As a result, the phase out period was very short and hurried.
(slut)
Hele rapporten er tilgængelig og downloades fra www.sida.se/exitevaluation
Afsnittet om Malawi hedder “Managing Aid Exit and Transformation – Malawi Country Case Study”.
Der er ikke her taget stilling til at gennemgå andre danske udfasninger, eksempelvis i Eritrea. Det må man læse om i “Eritrea – Country Case Study”.
Kilde: Evalueringsrapporten
