In 2015 the United Nations formulated a total of 17 goals for sustainable development within its 2030 Agenda, from ending poverty and hunger to climate protection, strong institutions and partnership-based cooperation in development policy.(1) These goals are preceded by five guiding principles in the preamble: People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace and Partnership. With the "BMZ 2030 Reform Strategy" (2a), the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) is aligning itself with these principles. However, the precise organisation of Germany's national development policy is much more complex.

Every three years, the OECD's Development Assistance Committee publishes an updated list of countries that are eligible recipients of ODA (Official Development Aid) according to their per capita income calculated by the World Bank. The countries are categorised into "least developed countries" (LDCs) (44), low-income countries that are not LDCs (two), lower middle-income countries and territories (35) and upper middle-income countries and territories (58). The last category includes countries that are often labelled as emerging economies in development discourse, such as India or Brazil, and European countries such as Kosovo or North Macedonia.(3)

Many different partners

With the adoption of the new reform programme, the BMZ is focusing its direct official work on 60 "partner countries" where cooperation takes place at different levels. This includes "bilateral partnerships" with countries that are considered "reform partners", where there has been measurable success in previous cooperation and a strong focus on reform, as well as countries where rapprochement with the EU is supported. The programme also defines "global partners" as countries that mostly fall under the heading of "emerging economies" where cooperation is sought "for the protection of global goods". In addition, there are so-called "nexus and peace partners", where the focus lies on combating causes of conflict and securing peace.

As a donor country, Germany states certain prerequisites for these "partnerships", which are emphasised more strongly than previously in the new programme: "We demand measurable progress in good governance, respect for human rights and the fight against corruption from our partner countries even more than before. Personal initiative is the key to development. Our partner countries can and must do more themselves."(2b) The fact that these standards are applied with varying degrees of rigour can currently be seen in the cooperation with Rwanda, which is experiencing considerable economic growth but whose government is becoming increasingly autocratic. However, European countries – including Germany – still want to cooperate with the East African country to prevent migration and when it comes to criticising human rights violations and the dismantling of democracy they are keeping a low profile. CDU (Christian Democratic Union) member of the Bundestag Alexander Dobrindt has a similar deal in mind to the one the UK has already negotiated with the country: "Illegal" asylum seekers are deported to Rwanda and undergo the procedure of applying for asylum there, while Rwanda receives money from the UK in return, which, among other things, is channelled into a fund for economic transformation and integration.(4)

Development cooperation as a multi-purpose instrument serving German national interests

Development policy has always been regarded as a "multi-purpose instrument" in which different ministries are involved, each pursuing their own interests – in addition to the Ministry of Finance, this also includes the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Defence, for example. The BMZ itself exists for over 60 years, beginning in the use of “half a million Deutschmarks from Marshall Plan funds to promote the exchange of experience with less developed regions”.(5) How the BMZ’s funds are distributed is decided anew with each budget. The target is a budget of 0.7 percent of gross national income.

However, this money does not necessarily flow directly to the partner countries, but also covers the mandatory shares in international and EU programmes and maintains the implementing organisations affiliated with the BMZ: the German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ), the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW – Development Bank), the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) and the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR). The promotion of private investment in so-called developing countries is also financed from the BMZ budget. The fact that Germany's own economic and geopolitical interests are also negotiated via development co-operation is not a recent development. As early as 1997, then Development Minister Dieter Spranger (Christian Social Union, CSU) said: "It is important to us that development cooperation contracts are awarded to Germany, i.e. that taxpayers' money is also used to maintain jobs in Germany."(6) Today, this connection is most evident in "Germany Trade & Invest" (GTAI), the federal government's economic development agency. The online platform it operates provides tips and information on advertised projects and funding priorities in various economic sectors, illustrated in its website content titled "Donors support a wide range of healthcare projects in Africa" or "New lender in Sub-Saharan Africa and Iraq".(7)

Echo of colonial thought pattern

The idea of development, and the image of Western superiority inscribed in it, is already present in colonial discourse. Political scientist Aram Ziai traces the origins of the idea of development in European colonialism and cites the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 as an example. It states: "To the colonies and territories which, as a result of war, have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the states which previously ruled them, and which are inhabited by such peoples as are not yet capable of governing themselves in the particularly difficult conditions of the contemporary world, the following principles apply: The welfare and development of these peoples constitute a sacred task of civilisation, and it is expedient to include in the present constitution guarantees for the accomplishment of this task. The best way to realise this principle by action is to entrust the guardianship of these peoples to the advanced nations which, by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position, are best able and willing to assume such responsibility." With this ideology of white suprimacy, brutal colonial rule was not only legitimised, but also transfigured into a noble calling.(8) Ziai writes: "Another notable continuity with post-Enlightenment colonial discourse is that the deficits of the South are conceived as improvable, no longer through a process of ‘civilisation’, but one of ‘development’", whereby the world is divided into an advanced and a supposedly backward part.(9) According to researcher Sarah White, this goes hand in hand with certain ideas of a "development world" that appears monolithic and leaves little room for complexity: "`The developing world´ that they make `speakable´ and `writable´ is a residual category, apparently geographical, but in practice a catch-all term, comprising societies which are highly spatially and culturally diverse, whose unity lies in being `not the West´.”(10) The implicit norm for measuring development is the Western self – therefore, there is no room for different paths and directions of development, the Global North sees itself at the top and expects these programmes to follow its example – despite the destructive effects of its own economic system on the environment.  

Who decides where the money goes?

The actual balance of power in so-called cooperation also perpetuates this dichotomy. The basic direction of development policy endeavours is dictated by donor countries – mostly states whose own wealth is at least in part the result of colonial exploitation. Countries that are forced to take out loans, for example, must comply with the conditions – they have little room for negotiation. Development cooperation does not only consist of bilateral agreements between countries, but is determined by a large number of different actors. These include international organisations such as the United Nations, supranational bodies such as the EU, regional organisations, but also clerical aid organisations and, increasingly, private foundations with large capital investments. This mixture continuously leads to a deficit in transparency and also to a lack of clarity regarding competences and ultimately responsibility – especially when different actors are involved in one and the same project.

The investments of foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in the budgets of international organisations also reveal a deficit in democratic legitimacy: how is the direction of the programmes influenced by the fact that private foundations contribute larger shares than some countries? For example, less than 20 percent of the World Health Organisation's funding comes from membership fees, which are determined by the UN General Assembly and are linked to gross national income. The majority comes from voluntary contributions – from member states, but also from large foundations. These contributions are often earmarked, i.e. they can only be used for specific programmes. Currently, earmarked contributions account for 88 percent of voluntary contributions.(11)

The WHO's decision on distribution is therefore limited: donors who contribute large sums ultimately help set the agenda. One example is the comparatively good level of funding for programmes to combat HIV/AIDS and malaria, while non-disease-specific approaches, i.e. programmes to expand general healthcare, to train and educate medical staff and to secure medical supply chains, often remain underfunded.(12) 

Part of the mix: Market development, corporate interests, genetic and reproductive technologies

There are numerous examples of individual countries' economic interests. In the field of agriculture, the debate on the use of genetically modified crops has also been a recurring topic in development cooperation. During an impending famine in southern Africa after a prolonged period of drought in 2002, for example, the USA wanted to ship genetically modified maize to affected countries – several countries rejected these aid shipments. These countries, critics of genetic engineering, and the EU were publicly accused of risking starvation of millions of people for irrational and ideological reasons. The actions of the USA and other countries with liberal legislation concerning genetic engineered food demonstrate its action was not simply a  response to an acute food crisis. It was also a conflict about sovereignty of interpretation in the debate, especially vis-à-vis the EU, and securing market power.(13)

Since Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, the company has acquired a monopoly on patents for genetically modified maize and rice varieties in many regions. By participating in various programmes, some of them in cooperation with the Gates Foundation, like the TELA maize project, the company is trying to open up additional markets – under the guise of food security. The project page clearly states: "Through TELA, AATF and its partners are pursuing the regulatory approval and dissemination of new biotech/genetically-modified maize seeds containing either an insect-­resistant trait or the stacked insect-resistant and drought-tolerant traits across seven target countries in Africa”.(14)

In the field of population policy, Susanne Schultz and Daniel Bendix have already laid out in 2015 how the increasing demographication of problems is shaping the focus of the BMZ's investment allocation and development policy priorities (15) – and how German companies such as Bayer are benefiting from contraceptive programmes. Among other things, Bayer is currently involved in the Challenge Initiative launched by the Gates Foundation, which is dedicated to enabling family planning in various African and Asian countries, although its focus is clearly on birth control. While Bayer claims that the company's support for the initiative is not linked to the use of Bayer products, marketing strategies in similar programmes in which the pharma giant has been involved have repeatedly emerged in the past. Bayer also appears to profit financially from the cooperation, even if the money does not always flow back directly: Bayer received a large grant from the Gates Foundation in 2022 to advance its own research in the field of non-hormonal contraceptives.(16)

An updated look at the role genetic engineering plays in international and especially German development policy is more than necessary – also because proxy debates are being fought in this field that are of central importance for other policy areas and ultimately also for the formation of public opinion regarding genetic and reproductive technologies.