Making a difference in the world: Europeans and the future ...ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_375_en.… · cooperation and co-ordinated by Directorate-General

�

European Commission

Special Eurobarometer 375 S

peci

al E

urob

arom

eter

375

/ W

ave

EB7

.61

– TN

S o

pini

on &

soc

ial

Making a difference in the world: Europeans and the future of development aidREPORT

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

SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER 375 EUROPEANS AND THE FUTURE OF DEVELOPMENT AID

2

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


3

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 20001 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 goals2:

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


4

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 support3. 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 support4. 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.


5

November 2011 sees the Fourth High Level Conference on aid effectiveness in Busan,

South Korea5, 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

Paris6 (March 2005) and Accra7 (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 intervals8.

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.


6

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 Belgium CZ Czech Republic BG Bulgaria DK Denmark DE Germany EE Estonia EL Greece ES Spain FR France IE Ireland IT Italy CY Republic of Cyprus LT Lithuania LV Latvia LU Luxembourg HU Hungary MT Malta NL The Netherlands AT Austria PL Poland PT Portugal RO Romania SI Slovenia SK Slovakia FI Finland SE Sweden UK The United Kingdom


7

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.


8

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 200910 (39%) and June 2010 (45%).

In December 2004, when Europeans from the EU25 were asked a slightly different

question11, 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 EB71.2 May-June 2009


9

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 EB62.2 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?


10

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%).


11

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”.


12

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 conditions12 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.


13

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

poverty13.

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)


14


- 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 States14 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.


15

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%).


16

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).


17

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.


18

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 out15. 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?


19


- 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.


20

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.


21

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%).


22


- 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.


23

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 poverty16. Asked what they think about this

increase in the light of the financial and economic crisis17, 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?


24

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.


25


- 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.


26


27


- 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”.


28

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

aid18. 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?


29


- 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%).


30


- 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.


31

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 policies19. 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?


32


- 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.


33


34


- 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.


35

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 aid20. 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?


36


- 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.


37

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%)


38

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.


39


- 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”).



41

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

effectiveness21 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?


42


- 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%).


43


44


- 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.


45


46

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 poverty22. 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?


47

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

information (SPONTANEOUS) 4%

DK 1%


48


- 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.


49

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.


50

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%).


51


- Socio-demographic factors heavily influence

the choice of information sources -

There are substantial differences in the information sources chosen, reflecting socio-

demographic 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.


52

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 countries23. 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)?


53


- 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%).


54


- 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%.


55


56

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.


57

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.

ANNEXES

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER 375

‘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 76.1 of the EUROBAROMETER, on request of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directorate-General for Communication, “Research and Speechwriting”. The SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER 375 is part of wave 76.1 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.

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

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

AT Austria Österreichisches Gallup-Institut 1018

03/09/2011 18/09/2011 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 EU27

26.856 03/09/2011 18/09/2011 408.787.006

QUESTIONNAIRE

QD1

12345

QD2

12

3456789

10

QD3

1

2

3

45

We should not increase aid to developing countries even though it has been promisedWe should reduce aid to developing countries as we can no longer afford it

DK

EB73.5 QD5 TREND SLIGHTLY MODIFIED

The Caribbean (Haiti, Dominican Republic, etc.)The Pacific and Oceania (Papua New Guinea, etc.)None (SPONTANEOUS)DK

The European Union (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? (M)

(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)

We should increase aid to developing countries beyond what is already promisedWe should keep our promise to increase aid to developing countries

EB73.5 QD2

NEW

Sub-Saharan AfricaThe Middle-East and North AfricaEastern Europe outside the EU, Caucasus and Central Asia (Ukraine, Armenia, Kazakhstan, etc.) Latin AmericaThe Indian sub-continent (Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.) South East Asia (Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.)

Which of the following parts of the world do you think are most in need of development aid to help them fighting poverty?

(SHOW CARD – READ OUT – MAX. 3 ANSWERS)

The EU provides development aid to assist certain countries outside the EU in their fight against poverty and in their development. EU development aid consists of the aid provided by both the European Commission and the national Governments of the EU Member States.

In your opinion, is it very important, fairly important, not very important or not at all important to help people in developing countries?

(ONE ANSWER ONLY)

Very importantFairly importantNot very importantNot at all importantDK

D. DEVELOPMENT AID

1

QD4

123456789

1011

QD5

12345

QD6

1

234567

Civil society organisations, such as NGOsDK

NEW

DK

NEW

With whom should the EU strengthen its cooperation to increase the impact of its development aid?

Other developed countries outside the EU, such as the United States and AustraliaEmerging economies, such as China and BrazilCompaniesPrivate foundations

None (SPONTANEOUS)DK


Developing countries

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?


Yes, definitelyYes, to some extentNo, not reallyNo, definitely not

NEW (BASED ON EB73.5 QD7)

MigrationTrade and financeEnergyEnvironmentTransportAgriculturePeace buildingOther (SPONTANEOUS)

In addition to development aid, in which policy area do you think EU actions have the biggest impact on developing countries?

(SHOW CARD – READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)

Climate change

2

QD7

12

3

4

567

QD8

1234

567

89

10111213

1415DK

NEW

Specialised press on developmentTHE INTERNETNews websitesSpecialised websites on development

Online social networksOther (SPONTANEOUS)Not interested in development policy/ Don’t seek for such information (SPONTANEOUS)

(SHOW CARD – READ OUT – MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)

TELEVISION

Generalist blogsSpecialised blogs on development

Other shows on TVRadioPRESSNews daily pressNews weekly or monthly press

TV newsTV documentaries

By strengthening bilateral cooperation between EU Member States

By being more transparent and publishing activities and results

By giving direct financial support to the governments of developing countries, based on the respect of certain conditions by these countries

Other (SPONTANEOUS)DK

NEW

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?

In your opinion, how could the EU best improve its effectiveness in terms of development aid?


By avoiding duplication of efforts through better coordination between EU Member StatesBy adopting common policies at EU level

3

QD9

12345

QD10

12345

Yes, you would be ready to pay 6 to 10% moreYes, you would be ready to pay more than 10% moreDK

NEW (BASED ON EB74.1 QD3.4)

No, definitely notDK

NEW

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)?


No, you are not ready to pay moreYes, you would be ready to pay up to 5% more

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?


Yes, definitelyYes, to some extentNo, not really

4

TABLES

%EB

76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EB76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EB76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EB76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EB76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EU 27 36 -9 49 5 9 2 3 1 3 1

BE 36 -4 47 0 11 3 5 2 1 -1

BG 23 -14 52 10 13 4 5 1 7 -1

CZ 24 -6 59 1 11 3 3 1 3 1

DK 51 -3 39 -1 8 4 1 0 1 0

DE 53 1 39 2 5 -1 2 0 1 -2

EE 20 -12 54 2 19 7 5 3 2 0

IE 41 -17 44 7 8 5 4 3 3 2

EL 31 -10 52 3 11 3 5 4 1 0

ES 37 -15 51 9 7 3 3 2 2 1

FR 35 -6 47 2 11 2 5 2 2 0

IT 25 -17 59 14 10 4 2 -2 4 1

CY 74 2 21 1 2 -3 2 1 1 -1

LV 23 -10 58 5 13 3 3 1 3 1

LT 29 -9 50 -1 13 6 6 4 2 0

LU 59 1 33 -2 5 0 2 1 1 0

HU 20 -9 55 -3 16 8 7 4 2 0

MT 46 -13 42 8 6 1 3 2 3 2

NL 34 -4 53 3 8 -1 4 1 1 1

AT 35 0 50 -2 10 1 4 2 1 -1

PL 32 -6 60 8 4 -1 0 -1 4 0

PT 26 -6 62 2 8 3 2 1 2 0

RO 28 -29 49 13 11 9 3 2 9 5

SI 21 -11 50 2 23 8 5 2 1 -1

SK 29 -2 55 -1 10 2 3 1 3 0

FI 39 -8 52 5 8 3 1 0 0 0

SE 69 2 28 -1 2 -1 1 0 0 0

UK 35 -15 46 5 11 6 6 3 2 1

Überhaupt nicht wichtig

NSP

DK

Sehr wichtig

Plutôt important

Fairly important

QD1 Selon vous, est-il très important, plutôt important, pas très important ou pas du tout important d'aider les populations des pays en développement?

QD1 In your opinion, is it very important, fairly important, not very important or not at all important to help people in developing countries?

QD1 Ist es Ihrer Meinung nach sehr wichtig, eher wichtig, nicht sehr wichtig oder überhaupt nicht wichtig, den Menschen in Entwicklungsländern zu helfen?

Très important

Very important

Pas du tout importantNot at all important

WNZiemlich wichtig

Pas très importantNot very importantNicht sehr

wichtig

%EB

76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EB76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EU 27 85 -4 12 3

BE 83 -4 16 5

BG 75 -4 18 5

CZ 83 -5 14 4

DK 90 -4 9 4

DE 92 3 7 -1

EE 74 -10 24 10

IE 85 -10 12 8

EL 83 -7 16 7

ES 88 -6 10 5

FR 82 -4 16 4

IT 84 -3 12 2

CY 95 3 4 -2

LV 81 -5 16 4

LT 79 -10 19 10

LU 92 -1 7 1

HU 75 -12 23 12

MT 88 -5 9 3

NL 87 -1 12 0

AT 85 -2 14 3

PL 92 2 4 -2

PT 88 -4 10 4

RO 77 -16 14 11

SI 71 -9 28 10

SK 84 -3 13 3

FI 91 -3 9 3

SE 97 1 3 -1

UK 81 -10 17 9

Total 'Not important'

Gesamt 'Wichtig' Gesamt 'Nicht wichtig'

Total 'Important'

Total 'Important' Total 'Pas important'

QD1 Selon vous, est-il très important, plutôt important, pas très important ou pas du tout important d'aider les populations des pays en développement ?

QD1 In your opinion, is it very important, fairly important, not very important or not at all important to help people in developing countries?

QD1 Ist es Ihrer Meinung nach sehr wichtig, eher wichtig, nicht sehr wichtig oder überhaupt nicht wichtig, den Menschen in Entwicklungsländern zu helfen?

%

EU 27

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

QD2 D’après vous, parmi les suivantes, quelles parties du monde ont le plus besoin d'aide au développement pour les aider à lutter contre la pauvreté ? (MAX. 3 REPONSES)

QD2 Which of the following parts of the world do you think are most in need of development aid to help them fighting poverty? (MAX. 3 ANSWERS)

QD2 Welche der folgenden Regionen der Welt sind Ihrer Meinung nach am stärksten auf Entwicklungshilfe angewiesen, um sie bei der Armutsbekämpfung zu unterstützen? (MAX. 3 ANTWORTEN)

78 47 19 20 35

61 37 15 16 23

72 20 18 17 32

82 33 6 18 17

72 47 18 15 32

71 45 17 9 25

51 34 19 8 17

85 32 13 27 28

88 38 23 13 37

59 49 13 7 25

48 25 11 7 20

82 29 12 16 22

70 33 15 15 25

Der indische Subkontinent

(Pakistan, Bangladesch

etc.)

EB76.1

Osteuropa außerhalb der EU, der Kaukasus

und Zentralasien (Ukraine, Armenien,

Kasachstan etc.)

EB76.1

Lateinamerika

Afrika südlich der

Sahara

EB76.1

Le Moyen-Orient et

l’Afrique du Nord

The Middle-East and

North Africa

Der Nahe Osten und Nordafrika

EB76.1

En Afrique Sub-

saharienne

Sub-Saharan Africa

Eastern Europe outside the EU, Caucasus and Central Asia (Ukraine, Armenia, Kazakhstan,

etc.)

Le sous-continent indien

(Pakistan, Bangladesh,

etc.)

The Indian sub-continent (Pakistan,

Bangladesh, etc.)

L’Amérique latine

Latin America

EB76.1

Les pays d’Europe de l’Est en dehors de l’UE,

le Caucase et l’Asie centrale (Ukraine,

Arménie, Kazakhstan, etc.)

%

EU 27

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK 64 37 11 7 30

69 48 15 12 33

78 39 26 13 43

79 33 17 8 17

62 44 14 8 22

57 28 12 6 12

43 25 13 6 18

66 45 27 20 28

62 38 20 14 8

67 32 10 16 31

80 27 16 11 33

82 26 17 19 24

51 28 20 9 30

66 28 14 6 20

60 25 15 5 18

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

70 33 15 15 25

Sub-Saharan Africa

The Middle-East and

North Africa

Eastern Europe outside the EU, Caucasus and Central Asia (Ukraine, Armenia, Kazakhstan,

etc.)

Latin America

The Indian sub-continent (Pakistan,

Bangladesh, etc.)

Afrika südlich der

Sahara

Der Nahe Osten und Nordafrika

Osteuropa außerhalb der EU, der Kaukasus

und Zentralasien (Ukraine, Armenien,

Kasachstan etc.)

Lateinamerika

Der indische Subkontinent

(Pakistan, Bangladesch

etc.)

En Afrique Sub-

saharienne

Le Moyen-Orient et

l’Afrique du Nord

Les pays d’Europe de l’Est en dehors de l’UE,

le Caucase et l’Asie centrale (Ukraine,

Arménie, Kazakhstan, etc.)

L’Amérique latine

Le sous-continent indien

(Pakistan, Bangladesh,

etc.)




%

EU 27

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY 2 5

2 9

33 6 7

6 6

20 13 4

4 6

18 28 8

5 4

11 16 5

4 6

19 7 7

10 14

15 23 4

3 2

15 10 6

1 3

15 21 8

3 10

20 22 5

6 22

18 10 6

5 3

15 13 12

4 8

14 24 5

EB76.1

EB76.1

16 17 6

Nichts davon (SPONTAN)

WN

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

None (SPONTANEOUS)

DK

Südostasien (Kambodscha, Vietnam etc.)

Die Karibik (Haiti,

Dominikanische Republik

etc.)

Die Pazifik-Staaten und

Ozeanien (Papua-

Neuguinea etc.)

Aucun (SPONTANE)

NSP

South East Asia (Cambodia,

Vietnam, etc.)

The Caribbean (Haiti,

Dominican Republic, etc.)

The Pacific and Oceania (Papua New Guinea, etc.)

En Asie du Sud-est (Cambodge, Viêt-Nam, etc.)

Les Caraïbes (Haïti, la

République dominicaine,

etc.)

Le Pacifique et l’Océanie

(Papouasie Nouvelle

Guinée, etc.)




%

EU 27

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK 17 17 5 7 9

27 21 4 2 4

20 24 5 1 2

17 8 3 6 4

17 14 12 5 8

11 5 7 2 17

14 7 5 4 32

20 17 7 4 6

13 7 3 2 12

15 7 2 3 15

19 22 7 5 5

24 23 5 3 3

17 11 12 10 9

10 7 5 7 10

17 7 5 12 11

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

16 17 6 4 8

South East Asia (Cambodia,

Vietnam, etc.)

The Caribbean (Haiti,

Dominican Republic, etc.)

The Pacific and Oceania (Papua

New Guinea, etc.)

None (SPONTANEOU

S)DK

Südostasien (Kambodscha, Vietnam etc.)

Die Karibik (Haiti,

Dominikanische Republik etc.)

Die Pazifik-Staaten und

Ozeanien (Papua-Neuguinea etc.)

Nichts davon (SPONTAN)

WN

En Asie du Sud-est (Cambodge, Viêt-Nam, etc.)

Les Caraïbes (Haïti, la

République dominicaine,

etc.)

Le Pacifique et l’Océanie

(Papouasie Nouvelle Guinée,

etc.)

Aucun (SPONTANE)

NSP




%EB

76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EB76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EU 27 12 -2 50 0

BE 12 -1 49 -2

BG 3 -1 30 -1

CZ 9 0 51 -1

DK 14 1 60 -6

DE 12 3 55 7

EE 6 -1 48 -6

IE 6 -2 43 -8

EL 13 -2 47 1

ES 14 -7 41 -2

FR 13 -3 57 -1

IT 17 -5 47 3

CY 7 -3 40 -18

LV 10 -3 54 5

QD3 L’UE (la Commission européenne et les Etats membres) a promis d’augmenter le niveau de l'aide au développement qu’elle fournit aux pays en développement. Au vu de la situation économique actuelle, laquelle des propositions suivantes se rapproche le plus de votre opinion ?

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?

QD3 Die EU hat sich verpflichtet, den Umfang ihrer Entwicklungshilfe für Entwicklungsländer zu erhöhen. Welche der folgenden Aussagen entspricht angesichts der aktuellen wirtschaftlichen Lage am ehesten Ihrer Meinung ?

Nous devrions augmenter l’aide européenne aux pays en

développement au-delà de ce qui a déjà été promis

We should increase aid to developing countries beyond what is already

promisedWir sollten die europäische Entwicklungshilfe für die

Entwicklungsländer stärker erhöhen als bisher versprochen

Nous devrions tenir notre promesse d’augmenter l’aide aux pays en

développement

We should keep our promise to increase aid to developing countries

Wir sollten unsere anfänglichen Versprechen an die Entwicklungsländer

halten, aber nicht mehr

%EB

76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EB76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EU 27 12 -2 50 0

LT 5 -4 45 7

LU 13 -6 67 4

HU 6 -5 43 -5

MT 7 -8 45 -5

NL 8 0 52 -3

AT 25 4 52 2

PL 14 2 51 -3

PT 9 1 50 2

RO 11 -3 35 -9

SI 8 -4 49 -2

SK 8 -2 56 1

FI 5 0 65 5

SE 12 -4 67 -1

UK 9 -2 46 -9




Wir sollten die europäische Entwicklungshilfe für die

Entwicklungsländer stärker erhöhen als bisher versprochen

Wir sollten unsere anfänglichen Versprechen an die Entwicklungsländer

halten, aber nicht mehr

Nous devrions augmenter l’aide européenne aux pays en

développement au-delà de ce qui a déjà été promis

Nous devrions tenir notre promesse d’augmenter l’aide aux pays en

développement

We should increase aid to developing countries beyond what is already

promised

We should keep our promise to increase aid to developing countries

%EB

76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EB76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EB76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EU 27 14 -1 18 4 6 -1

BE 19 4 19 0 1 -1

BG 25 1 30 7 12 -6

CZ 16 1 21 0 3 0

DK 10 2 15 3 1 0

DE 16 -5 12 -3 5 -2

EE 20 1 21 6 5 0

IE 23 3 22 7 6 0

EL 13 -7 24 10 3 -2

ES 17 0 21 6 7 3

FR 7 -1 19 5 4 0

IT 12 -1 16 3 8 0

CY 22 9 28 16 3 -4

LV 11 -1 21 -2 4 1


Nous ne devrions pas augmenter l’aide aux pays en développement, même si

cela a été promis

Nous devrions réduire l’aide aux pays en développement car nous ne sommes

plus capables de l’assumerNSP



We should not increase aid to developing countries even though it

has been promised

We should reduce aid to developing countries as we can no longer afford it

DK

Wir sollten die Entwicklungshilfe für die Entwicklungsländer nicht erhöhen, auch

wenn dies versprochen wurde

Wir sollten die Entwicklungshilfe für die Entwicklungsländer verringern, da wir

sie uns nicht mehr leisten könnenWN

%EB

76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EB76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EB76.1

Diff.EB

73.5

EU 27 14 -1 18 4 6 -1

LT 16 -3 28 1 6 -1

LU 8 -1 9 3 3 0

HU 23 1 24 11 4 -2

MT 18 6 20 3 10 4

NL 21 1 16 1 3 1

AT 9 -5 11 0 3 -1

PL 15 2 9 0 11 -1

PT 17 -2 14 -2 10 1

RO 13 5 21 9 20 -2

SI 14 0 25 5 4 1

SK 14 -2 19 4 3 -1

FI 15 -7 13 2 2 0

SE 10 1 8 3 3 1

UK 14 -1 27 12 4 0

DK




Wir sollten die Entwicklungshilfe für die Entwicklungsländer nicht erhöhen, auch

wenn dies versprochen wurde

Wir sollten die Entwicklungshilfe für die Entwicklungsländer verringern, da wir

sie uns nicht mehr leisten könnenWN

Nous ne devrions pas augmenter l’aide aux pays en développement, même si

cela a été promis

Nous devrions réduire l’aide aux pays en développement car nous ne sommes

plus capables de l’assumerNSP

We should not increase aid to developing countries even though it

has been promised

We should reduce aid to developing countries as we can no longer afford it

%

EU 27

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

QD4 En plus de l’aide au développement, dans quel domaine politique pensez-vous que les actions de l’UE ont l’impact le plus important sur les pays en développement?

QD4 In addition to development aid, in which policy area do you think EU actions have the biggest impact on developing countries?

QD4 In welchem Politikbereich haben EU-Maßnahmen Ihrer Meinung nach neben der Entwicklungshilfe die größten Auswirkungen auf die Entwicklungsländer?

9 13 20 4 6

6 6 23 4 6

11 5 27 4 8

5 7 26 10 3

8 12 20 7 8

2 12 17 5 3

6 10 14 7 6

10 17 18 8 6

8 10 18 9 6

6 26 18 6 6

9 7 31 5 4

8 15 17 4 6

4 8 26 12 4

6 21 20 7 6

5 20 19 8 3

7 28 17 7 5

8 24 23 10 6

8 21 13 8 5

8 14 16 8 5

15 7 24 6 4

4 23 21 11 7

16 14 16 4 7

4 9 23 5 5

5 15 28 5 8

10 9 26 3 4

11 15 21 5 6

3 12 15 10 5

Umweltschutz

EB76.1

L'environnement

Environment

9 16 18 6 6

Handel und Finanzen

EB76.1

L'énergie

Energy

Energie

EB76.1

Le commerce et la financeTrade and

finance

Klimawandel

EB76.1

Les migrations

Migration

Zu- und Abwanderung

EB76.1

Le changement climatique

Climate change

%

EU 27

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

QD4 In welchem Politikbereich haben EU-Maßnahmen Ihrer Meinung nach neben der Entwicklungshilfe die größten Auswirkungen auf die Entwicklungsländer?

Les transports

L’agricultureLa

construction de la paix

QD4 En plus de l’aide au développement, dans quel domaine politique pensez-vous que les actions de l’UE ont l’impact le plus important sur les pays en développement?

QD4 In addition to development aid, in which policy area do you think EU actions have the biggest impact on developing countries?

Transport

Autre (SPONTANE)

Aucun (SPONTANE)

NSP

Transport Agriculture

LandwirtschaftFriedensaufba

uSonstige

(SPONTAN)Nichts davon (SPONTAN)

WN

Peace buildingOther

(SPONTANEOUS)

None (SPONTANEO

US)DK

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

14 16 1 2 111

2 17 17 2 2 2

10 18 0 2 241

1 15 12 1 2 8

24 19 0 1 31

1 18 14 1 2 7

15 23 3 2 101

2 16 11 1 1 13

7 15 0 4 62

0 14 16 3 2 10

17 17 0 3 111

1 6 17 1 1 10

6 14 0 1 71

2 13 11 1 3 10

8 13 3 4 161

1 19 21 1 1 7

16 18 1 3 71

1 4 21 1 0 11

17 18 2 1 51

2 16 11 1 4 7

15 13 1 1 163

1 14 26 1 3 16

20 9 0 2 242

2 15 16 4 4 8

15 15 2 2 92

0 15 35 2 1 2

16 21 2 0 51

1 11 16 0 3 17

%

EU 27

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

9

52 31 8 3 6 83 11

57 32 6 3 2 89

6

47 45 4 3 1 92 7

56 35 5 1 3 91

11

52 36 7 3 2 88 10

35 38 7 4 16 73

4

31 50 10 1 8 81 11

40 47 4 0 9 87

11

32 55 8 2 3 87 10

46 41 7 4 2 87

10

56 31 3 1 9 87 4

45 40 9 1 5 85

4

67 23 5 1 4 90 6

65 25 3 1 6 90

1

44 45 5 2 4 89 7

90 8 1 0 1 98

9

29 48 9 3 11 77 12

54 31 7 2 6 85

9

53 32 3 3 9 85 6

49 39 6 3 3 88

6

52 36 4 1 7 88 5

55 33 5 1 6 88

1058 29 7 3 3 87

1548 36 8 7 1 84

6

54 38 4 1 3 92 5

51 32 4 2 11 83

10

57 29 10 3 1 86 13

Total 'Non'

Total 'No'

Gesamt 'Nein'

EB76.1

48 36 7 3 6 84

WN

EB76.1

Total 'Oui'

Total 'Yes'

Gesamt 'Ja'

EB76.1

Nein, eher nicht

EB76.1

Non, absolument

pas

No, definitely not

Nein, auf keinen Fall

EB76.1

Ja, auf jeden Fall

EB76.1

Oui, plutôt

Yes, to some extent

Ja, teilweise

EB76.1

QD5 Pensez-vous que l’UE devrait exiger que les pays en développement respectent certaines règles concernant la démocratie, les droits de l’homme et la gouvernance comme une condition pour recevoir l’aide au développement de l’UE ?

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?

QD5 Sind Sie der Meinung, dass die EU die Einhaltung bestimmter Grundsätze in Bezug auf Demokratie, Menschenrechte und der Regierungsführung durch die Entwicklungsländer zu einer Bedingung für den Erhalt von EU-Entwicklungshilfe machen sollte?

Oui, tout à fait

Yes, definitely

Non, pas vraiment

No, not really

NSP

DK

%

EU 27

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV 37 41 24

32 72

41 29 23

46

31 40 28

33

44 35 25

40 33 12

40 52

60 37 15

44 43 23

34 47 17

29 48

59 34 29

Mit Schwellenländern, wie z.B. China und

Brasilien

EB76.1

42 36 21

39

49 32 23

Mit Entwicklungsländern

EB76.1

D’autres pays développés en dehors

de l’UE comme les Etats-Unis et

l’Australie

Other developed countries outside the

EU, such as the United States and

Australia

Mit anderen Industrieländern

außerhalb der EU, wie z.B. den

Vereinigten Staaten und Australien

EB76.1

QD6 Avec qui l’UE devrait-elle renforcer sa coopération pour augmenter l’impact de son aide au développement ? (MAX. 2 REPONSES)

QD6 With whom should the EU strengthen its cooperation to increase the impact of its development aid? (MAX. 2 ANSWERS)

QD6 Mit wem sollte die EU ihre Zusammenarbeit ausbauen, um die Wirkung ihrer Entwicklungshilfe zu verbessern? (MAX. 2 NENNUNGEN)

Les pays en développement


Des économies émergentes comme la Chine et le Brésil

Emerging economies, such as China and

Brazil

%

EU 27

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK




Les pays en développement

D’autres pays développés en dehors

de l’UE comme les Etats-Unis et

l’Australie

Des économies émergentes comme la Chine et le Brésil


Other developed countries outside the

EU, such as the United States and

Australia

Emerging economies, such as China and

Brazil

42 36 21

Mit Entwicklungsländern

Mit anderen Industrieländern

außerhalb der EU, wie z.B. den

Vereinigten Staaten und Australien

Mit Schwellenländern, wie z.B. China und

Brasilien

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

32 53 23

46 30 13

28 50 34

26 48 16

48 31 32

47 41 13

35 41 16

23 39 26

27 42 14

33 44 22

30 54 26

49 31 32

67 35 26

46 23 22

%

EU 27

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV




Des entreprisesDes fondations

privées

Des organisations de la société civile,

comme les ONGNSP

DK

Mit UnternehmenMit privaten Stiftungen

Mit zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen,

wie z.B. NGOs

WN

Companies Private foundationsCivil society

organisations, such as NGOs

EB76.1

11 9 15 12

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

4

9 6 7 14

18 10 22

8

24 7 23 3

9 13 22

6

11 6 13 10

14 14 16

13

8 3 13 6

9 11 15

7 8

16

18 8 20 12

8 4 17

911 9 8

11

8 5 7 5

8

%

EU 27

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK




Des entreprisesDes fondations

privées

Des organisations de la société civile,

comme les ONGNSP

15 12

Companies Private foundationsCivil society

organisations, such as NGOs

DK

Mit UnternehmenMit privaten Stiftungen

Mit zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen,

wie z.B. NGOs

WN

4 8 9 10

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

11 9

13 10 36 7

8 8 14 8

9 6 10 23

21 10 20 5

15 15 23 8

3 8 11 17

11 7 6 17

7 8 9 27

30 3

13 7 14 10

9 11 17 8

6 9 12 20

15 7 25 4

10 4

%

EU 27

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV 18 36 19

43 32

22 40 14

19

20 40 24

18

37 34 20

21 28 12

18 44

36 43 18

18 23 33

20 25 18

18 34

30 40 29

25 35 19

25

31 39 20

QD7 Selon vous, comment l’UE pourrait-elle améliorer au mieux son efficacité en termes d’aide au développement ? (MAX. 2 REPONSES)

QD7 In your opinion, how could the EU best improve its effectiveness in terms of development aid? (MAX. 2 ANSWERS)

QD7 Wie könnte die EU Ihrer Meinung nach am besten die Wirksamkeit ihrer Entwicklungshilfe verbessern? (MAX. 2 NENNUNGEN)

En évitant la duplication des efforts par une

meilleure coordination entre les Etats membres

de l'UE

Durch die Stärkung bilateraler

Zusammenarbeit zwischen EU-

Mitgliedstaaten

Durch die Vermeidung von doppelter Arbeit durch

eine bessere Abstimmung zwischen den EU-Mitgliedstaaten

By avoiding duplication of efforts through better

coordination between EU Member States

En renforçant la coopération bilatérale

entre les Etats membres de l'UE

By strengthening bilateral cooperation between EU Member

States

EB76.1

En adoptant des politiques communes au

niveau de l’UE

By adopting common policies at EU level

Durch die Einführung gemeinsamer

Maßnahmen auf EU-Ebene

EB76.1

EB76.1

%

EU 27

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK




En évitant la duplication des efforts par une

meilleure coordination entre les Etats membres

de l'UE

En adoptant des politiques communes au

niveau de l’UE

En renforçant la coopération bilatérale

entre les Etats membres de l'UE

By avoiding duplication of efforts through better

coordination between EU Member States

By adopting common policies at EU level

By strengthening bilateral cooperation between EU Member

States

25 35 19

Durch die Vermeidung von doppelter Arbeit durch

eine bessere Abstimmung zwischen den EU-Mitgliedstaaten

Durch die Einführung gemeinsamer

Maßnahmen auf EU-Ebene

Durch die Stärkung bilateraler

Zusammenarbeit zwischen EU-

MitgliedstaatenEB

76.1EB

76.1EB

76.1

16 39 21

31 26 16

19 31 23

14 25 22

31 42 15

31 41 25

22 32 23

11 37 27

12 41 19

19 40 19

20 37 13

48 29 15

57 23 14

23 21 22

%

EU 27

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV




En étant plus transparente et en rendant publiques ses activités et ses

résultats

En fournissant un soutien financier direct aux gouvernements des pays en développement, sur la base du respect de certaines conditions par

ces pays

Autre (SPONTANE)

NSP

DK

Durch mehr Transparenz und die Veröffentlichung von

Aktivitäten und Ergebnissen

Durch Gewährung direkter finanzieller Unterstützung an Regierungen von

Entwicklungsländern, unter der Voraussetzung, dass diese Länder bestimmte Bedingungen beachten

Sonstiges (SPONTAN)

WN

By being more transparent and

publishing activities and results

By giving direct financial support to the governments of developing

countries, based on the respect of certain conditions by these countries

Other (SPONTA- NEOUS)

EB76.1

31 24 1 13

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

4

27 32 1 14

33 25 2

11

41 31 1 4

34 34 0

5

34 22 0 13

34 28 1

16

34 31 1 8

29 18 2

23 1

17

41 23 1 11

34 19 2

1027 25 0

10

37 38 0 5

29

%

EU 27

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK




En étant plus transparente et en rendant publiques ses activités et ses

résultats

En fournissant un soutien financier direct aux gouvernements des pays en développement, sur la base du respect de certaines conditions par

ces pays

Autre (SPONTANE)

NSP

1 13

By being more transparent and

publishing activities and results

By giving direct financial support to the governments of developing

countries, based on the respect of certain conditions by these countries

Other (SPONTA- NEOUS)

DK

Durch mehr Transparenz und die Veröffentlichung von

Aktivitäten und Ergebnissen

Durch Gewährung direkter finanzieller Unterstützung an Regierungen von

Entwicklungsländern, unter der Voraussetzung, dass diese Länder bestimmte Bedingungen beachten

Sonstiges (SPONTAN)

WN

26 16 2 15

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

31 24

35 33 1 8

40 28 1 8

25 25 0 26

43 20 3 6

32 31 3 4

10 20 0 20

23 12 0 18

18 21 0 25

0 4

36 22 3 8

30 36 2 9

27 20 2 23

44 27 2 2

39 36

%

EU 27

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV

QD8 Si vous cherchiez de l’information sur les questions liées à la politique de développement et à la lutte contre la pauvreté dans le monde, lesquelles des sources suivantes utiliseriez-vous ? (PLUSIEURS REPONSES POSSIBLES)

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? (MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)

QD8 Welche der folgenden Quellen würden Sie nutzen, wenn Sie sich über Themen der Entwicklungspolitik und der globalen Armutsbekämpfung informieren möchten? (MEHRFACHNENNUNGEN MÖGLICH)

61 16 12 25 16

68 26 7 6 40

67 40 20 14 27

69 14 6 26 32

47 32 10 19 31

64 33 7 24 40

73 31 23 14 21

74 57 14 30 56

67 28 14 37 31

58 38 13 22 33

58 50 11 21 46

68 38 11 15 43

82 22 18 29 35

Tageszeitungen

EB76.1

La presse quotidienne

d’information

News daily press

66 33 10 19 37

Andere Sendungen im

Fernsehen

EB76.1

Radio

Radio

Dem Radio

EB76.1

D’autres émissions à la

télévision

Other shows on TV

Nachrichtensendungen im Fernsehen

EB76.1

Les documentaires à

la télévision

TV documentaries

Dokumentationen im Fernsehen

EB76.1

Les journaux télévisés

TV news

%

EU 27

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK




Les journaux télévisés

Les documentaires à

la télévision

D’autres émissions à la

télévisionRadio

La presse quotidienne

d’information

TV newsTV

documentariesOther shows

on TVRadio News daily press

Nachrichtensendungen im Fernsehen

Dokumentationen im Fernsehen

Andere Sendungen im

FernsehenDem Radio Tageszeitungen

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

66 33 10 19 37

76 22 14 25 31

69 21 18 22 35

54 47 9 15 54

57 37 13 18 43

53 16 6 12 16

64 34 19 17 18

78 26 9 24 23

82 57 20 31 66

70 38 20 25 43

86 28 15 4 18

53 54 11 26 50

64 27 11 24 32

65 28 3 12 34

77 45 17 18 64

%

EU 27

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV




Les sites web spécialisés sur le développement

Les blogs généralistes

Les blogs spécialisés sur le développement

La presse hebdomadaire ou mensuelle d’information

La presse spécialisée sur le développement

Les sites web d’information

Specialised press on development

News websitesSpecialised websites on development

Generalist blogs

Specialised blogs on development

News weekly or monthly press

Fachpresse zu entwicklungspolitis

chen Themen

Nachrichten-Webseiten

Auf entwicklungspolitis

che Themen spezialisierte Webseiten

Allgemeine Blogs


che Themen spezialisierte Blogs

Wöchentlich oder monatlich

erscheinende Zeitungen / Magazine

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

9 31 18 4 610

14 34 22 4 710

3 21 6 4 59

15 32 25 3 109

18 46 49 5 135

10 24 11 4 515

8 29 17 5 810

6 34 15 3 57

8 27 17 12 1116

6 23 17 4 85

16 38 21 4 812

10 29 16 3 712

6 20 16 10 105

8 36 12 2 17

%

EU 27

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK




La presse hebdomadaire ou mensuelle d’information

La presse spécialisée sur le développement

Les sites web d’information

Les sites web spécialisés sur le développement

Les blogs généralistes

Les blogs spécialisés sur le développement

News weekly or monthly press

Specialised press on development

News websitesSpecialised websites on development

Generalist blogs

Specialised blogs on development

Wöchentlich oder monatlich

erscheinende Zeitungen / Magazine

Fachpresse zu entwicklungspolitis

chen Themen

Nachrichten-Webseiten


che Themen spezialisierte Webseiten

Allgemeine Blogs


che Themen spezialisierte Blogs

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

10 9 31 18 4 6

8 5 36 11 12 9

16 22 37 33 4 8

9 6 29 12 2 5

6 3 37 14 4 4

13 18 42 42 3 11

22 8 24 8 4 3

4 5 27 12 3 5

5 3 11 9 2 3

5 6 21 10 1 3

8 4 43 17 7 5

19 15 34 25 6 14

15 8 52 19 6 4

13 27 38 55 5 13

4 4 44 22 2 4

%

EU 27

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV




Online social networks

NSPTotal 'La

Télévision'Total 'La Presse'

Total 'Internet'

Les réseaux sociaux en

ligne

Autre (SPONTANE

)

Pas intéressé(e) par la politique de

développement\ Ne cherche pas ce type

d’information (SPONTANE)

Other (SPONTANE

OUS)

Not interested in development policy\ Don’t seek for such

information (SPONTANEOUS)

DKTotal

'Television'Total 'Press'

Total 'Internet'

EB76.1

EB76.1

Sonstige (SPONTAN)

Kein Interesse an Entwicklungspolitik / Nicht auf der Suche

nach solchen Informationen (SPONTAN)

WNGesamt

'Fernsehen'Gesamt 'Presse'

Gesamt 'Internet'

Soziale Netzwerke im Internet

6

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

1 4 1 77 47 45

28

53

4

1 5 0 80 565

6

0 10 1 86 42

0 7 1 77 50 51

377

1 0 0 78 58 7713

15

0 2 0 90 67

1 8 2 73 40 46

388

2 9 0 72 45 456

6

1 2 0 82 34

1 2 1 73 36 36

393

0 3 0 65 50 535

11

0 3 2 80

17

51

0 4 0 80 34 40

0 5 1 69 27 53

%

EU 27

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK




Les réseaux sociaux en

ligne

Autre (SPONTANE

)

Pas intéressé(e) par la politique de

développement\ Ne cherche pas ce type

d’information (SPONTANE)

NSPTotal 'La

Télévision'Total 'La Presse'

Total 'Internet'

Online social networks

Other (SPONTANE

OUS)

Not interested in development policy\ Don’t seek for such

information (SPONTANEOUS)

DKTotal

'Television'Total 'Press'

Soziale Netzwerke im Internet

Sonstige (SPONTAN)

Kein Interesse an Entwicklungspolitik / Nicht auf der Suche

nach solchen Informationen (SPONTAN)

WNGesamt

'Fernsehen'Gesamt 'Presse'

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

Total 'Internet'

Gesamt 'Internet'

52

EB76.1

6 1 4 1 77 47 45

EB76.1

15 1 3 1 72 43

40 40

15 1 0 0 67 62

5 1 74 25

61

8 0 8 0 83

45

9 1 1 0 79 69 75

7 0

22 38

10 1 4 0 92 75

5 1 91 20

34

4 0 16 1 63

17

2 0 7 1 88 31 28

4 0

61 54

8 1 10 0 70 38

0 0 84 70

53

9 1 5 0 84

65

20 1 1 0 75 68 76

10 2

567 1 4 1 72 38

%

EU 27

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

14

32 42 9 5 12 74 14

40 42 7 7 4 82

9

33 56 6 3 2 89 9

33 51 7 2 7 84

8

53 39 4 1 3 92 5

29 39 6 2 24 68

7

27 56 5 1 11 83 6

21 57 6 1 15 78

17

28 54 11 3 4 82 14

34 46 11 6 3 80

10

40 37 3 1 19 77 4

38 45 6 4 7 83

6

45 36 8 2 9 81 10

46 37 5 1 11 83

1

31 53 7 1 8 84 8

85 12 1 0 2 97

10

34 50 8 1 7 84 9

36 43 6 4 11 79

6

43 39 3 1 14 82 4

44 45 4 2 5 89

6

33 44 5 1 17 77 6

37 46 5 1 11 83

1541 39 10 5 5 80

2725 43 14 13 5 68

6

30 54 8 2 6 84 10

40 38 4 2 16 78

10

47 37 11 3 2 84 14

Total 'Non'

Total 'No'

Gesamt 'Nein'

EB76.1

35 45 7 3 10 80

WN

EB76.1

Total 'Oui'

Total 'Yes'

Gesamt 'Ja'

EB76.1

Nein, eher nicht

EB76.1

Non, absolument

pas

No, definitely not

Nein, auf keinen Fall

EB76.1

Ja, auf jeden Fall

EB76.1

Oui, plutôt

Yes, to some extent

Ja, teilweise

EB76.1

QD9 En plus de lutter contre la pauvreté, pensez-vous que l’aide au développement de l’UE devrait aussi être liée à d’autres objectifs européens comme la gestion des flux migratoires, l’accès à l’énergie et aux matières premières ou des opportunités commerciales pour l’UE ?

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?

QD9 Sind Sie der Meinung, dass die Entwicklungshilfe der EU neben der Armutsbekämpfung auch mit anderen europäischen Zielen, wie z.B. der Steuerung von Migrationsströmen, dem Zugang zu Energie und Rohstoffen oder Handelsmöglichkeiten für die EU, verbunden werden sollte?

Oui, tout à fait

Yes, definitely

Non, pas vraiment

No, not really

NSP

DK

%

EU 27

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

QD10 Seriez-vous prêt(e) à payer plus pour des aliments ou d’autres produits provenant de pays en développement, afin d’aider les personnes qui habitent dans ces pays (par exemple pour des produits issus du commerce équitable)?

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)?

QD10 Wären Sie bereit, mehr Geld für Lebensmittel oder andere Produkte aus Entwicklungsländern zu bezahlen, um die dort lebenden Menschen zu unterstützen (z.B. für fair gehandelte Produkte)?

30 48

22 32

44 38

62 17

58 31

62 30

58 30

40 38

73 14

71 21

52 32

19 43

70 25

63 30

24 41

45 37

43 41

52 31

55 32

54 38

52 31

57 30

66 25

33 33

33 38

45 38

47 33

71 21

Nein, Sie wären nicht bereit, mehr zu bezahlen

EB76.1

Oui, vous seriez prêt(e) à payer 5% de plus

Yes, you would be ready to pay up to 5% more

Ja, Sie wären bereit, bis zu 5% mehr zu bezahlen

EB76.1

Non, vous n’êtes pas prêt(e) à payer plus

No, you are not ready to pay more

%

EU 27

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

QD10 Seriez-vous prêt(e) à payer plus pour des aliments ou d’autres produits provenant de pays en développement, afin d’aider les personnes qui habitent dans ces pays (par exemple pour des produits issus du commerce équitable)?

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)?

QD10 Wären Sie bereit, mehr Geld für Lebensmittel oder andere Produkte aus Entwicklungsländern zu bezahlen, um die dort lebenden Menschen zu unterstützen (z.B. für fair gehandelte Produkte)?

Yes, you would be ready to pay 6 to 10% more

Yes, you would be ready to pay more than 10% more

DK Total 'Yes'

Oui, vous seriez prêt(e) à payer de 6 à 10% de plus

Oui, vous seriez prêt(e) à payer plus de 10% de plus

NSP Total 'Oui'

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

EB76.1

Ja, Sie wären bereit, zwischen 6% und 10% mehr zu

bezahlen

Ja, Sie wären bereit, mehr als 10% mehr zu bezahlen

WN Gesamt 'Ja'

11 5 1 54

10 4 6 47

6 1 6 37

1 0 7 22

19 6 4 63

23 10 1 66

6 2 5 40

5 1 3 31

8 2 7 41

5 1 2 44

7 0 10 38

12 3 3 52

2 1 2 28

6 1 9 48

21 12 2 74

2 1 4 33

5 0 11 37

5 1 2 27

11 5 6 54

23 14 1 80

7 0 6 21

3 2 7 35

6 1 4 38

1 1 19 19

16 5 1 69

4 0 4 34

10 5 3 53

28 16 2 76

Documents

Making a difference in the world: Europeans and the future ...ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_375_en.… · cooperation and co-ordinated by Directorate-General