Doslovný záznam ze zasedání

Středa, 29. dubna 2015 - Štrasburk

23. Závazky členských států EU v oblasti oficiální rozvojové pomoci (ODA) (rozprava)

  Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest debata nad:

– pytaniem wymagającym odpowiedzi ustnej skierowanym do Rady przez Lindę McAvan w imieniu Komisji Rozwoju w sprawie zobowiązań państw członkowskich UE dotyczących oficjalnej pomocy rozwojowej (ODA) (O-000035/2015 - B8-0113/2015) oraz

– pytaniem wymagającym odpowiedzi ustnej skierowanym do Komisji przez Lindę McAvan w imieniu Komisji Rozwoju w sprawie zobowiązań państw członkowskich UE dotyczących oficjalnej pomocy rozwojowej (ODA) (O-000036/2015 - B8-0114/2015) (2015/2611(RSP)).

  Linda McAvan, author. – Mr President, tonight’s debate is extremely important and extremely timely. It is important because sticking to our commitment of 0.7% of international aid is central to remaining credible on the global stage as we prepare for a series of major international summits on development in the coming months. It is timely because we know that the 0.7% issue is central to the debate at the Council meeting which will take place on 26 May.

It is no secret that, in recent years, several Member States have struggled to reach their target. I remind colleagues that the target is 0.7% for the old Member States – if you can still call them old, the 15 – and 0.33% for the ten new Member States. But, despite the economic downturn, four Member States have reached the target – the United Kingdom, Sweden, Luxembourg and Denmark – and another 11 Member States have increased, or maintained, their Official Development Assistance (ODA) levels, and that includes Croatia, Finland and Germany. So it is not all bad news on reaching the target. We now need to build on progress to date and to get the Member States to recommit to 0.7%. We are not asking the Council to make new commitments, but to stick with what has already been agreed – a target first mooted in the 1970s.

The Committee on Development has adopted a report asking for the Council to do this and asking for a sub-target of at least 0.2% of aid to go to least developed countries to ensure that our aid stays firmly focused on poverty reduction. I would like to hear from the Commission how it sees the debate on 0.7% and what importance it attaches to that figure, and from the Council on the progress it is making in discussions between the Member States as they prepare for the Council.

So why is the 0.7% so important? Not because I see aid as the only source of financing for development – not at all – but, when we go to the international conferences for financing for development, like the one in Addis Ababa in July, we need to start talking about releasing a whole new raft of funding sources – domestic resources, including better tax collection, and private sector finance.

But if the EU goes to Addis without recommitting on 0.7%, I am afraid that it will be seen by our partners in developing countries as backtracking and bad faith. So, instead of talking about those new sources of finance, instead of our commitment on ODA acting as a catalyst to get other finance on the table, we will end up only talking about ODA and not talking about the private sector or domestic resources. The Addis working document, the so-called Zero Draft, makes it clear that the 0.7% target is an expected and core element of a successful conference. The language is extremely clear.

The Latvian Presidency has done a great job on development so far. Back in January, in Riga, we launched the European Year for Development 2015. At the time, I said that we wanted a year not just of warm words, but a year of action. On finance, we now need action and money to match. Success in Addis Ababa will pave the way for success in New York in September on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and, crucially, because the processes are linked, for success in the climate talks in Paris in December.

So the meeting of the Council on 26 May is crucial. I hope the Commission and Council will work with Parliament in the coming weeks to prepare for the Council, to prepare for Addis, and to lay the foundations for ambitious agreements in Addis, New York and Paris that can form a true, global partnership for sustainable development from 2015 to 2030.

  Zanda Kalniņa-Lukaševica, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, this year we have to embrace change and develop a truly universal and ambitious post-2015 development agenda, aimed at poverty eradication and sustainable development in its three dimensions – economic, social and environmental.

The discussion on mobilising all means of implementation, both financial and non-financial, for the post-2015 agenda, is currently accelerating both in the EU and globally. The third Conference on Financing for Development to be held in Addis Ababa in July is a key trigger of this acceleration.

The Council notes the work done by Parliament in this respect, notably the Draft Report on Financing for Development. We are looking forward to the adoption of the report during the May part-session to further inform our work.

The EU has consistently accounted for more than half of global official development assistance (ODA). The European Union has made ambitious ODA commitments, including collectively committing to 0.7 % of GNI by 2015 and to 0.15-0.20 % of GNI to the least developed countries.

We are not shying away from our commitments and are determined to fulfil them, even if we have not yet been able to fully deliver due to an unexpected – and major – global financial and economic crisis. We stand ready to play our part. We fully recognise the importance of this element as a success factor for the negotiations in Addis Ababa and beyond.

Let me remind you that no other major development donor has made an explicit commitment or signalled readiness to reach the 0.7 % target or to significantly increase their aid levels.

Let me now turn to the preparation of the Addis Ababa conference. The latest OECD figures on ODA for 2014 show that the EU and its Member States have increased their aid substantially since the last period. At this stage the Council is preparing the formal EU position for the conference in Addis Ababa, where examining the conditions and the timing for the EU to recommit collectively on ODA is a key element.

A first round of encouraging discussions was held at the informal meeting of Ministers of Development on 12 March 2015. The next discussion is to be held by the Development Council on 26 May 2015 when the Council will adopt Council Conclusions. Any recommitment on ODA targets has important budgetary implications that require political buy-in across institutions, and constituencies are to be considered carefully by Member States. This process needs to be closely coordinated with the economic, social and environmental constituencies.

The Council agrees that ODA is important for the success of the Addis Ababa, New York and Paris conferences. For the Addis Ababa conference we need a well-balanced package with ODA as a part. ODA still remains important for those most in need, and should be channelled accordingly. Yet it is evident that ODA is decreasing in relative importance to other potential resources for sustainable development. Issues such as trade, remittances, support for domestic resource mobilisation and science, technology and innovation, to name just a few, can be much more interesting for a whole range of partner countries.

To conclude, let me stress again the Council’s position on shared responsibility. We will only be able to implement an ambitious post-2015 agenda if all countries take the necessary steps in terms of political action and resource mobilisation, and contribute meaningfully to achieving the agenda.

I want to thank Ms McAvan for her question and for giving me the opportunity to intervene. To reiterate, 2015 is a unique opportunity to arrive at a truly universal and sustainable development agenda, and we should use all avenues to communicate about the importance of the Addis Ababa, New York and Paris events. I am looking forward to your views.

  Neven Mimica, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, let me thank the Chair of the Committee on Development (DEVE), Ms McAvan, for putting this question forward. It focuses on Official Development Assistance (ODA) which is a very important and catalytic aspect of the means of implementation for the post-2015 agenda.

Despite the difficult budgetary environment faced by EU Member States, I am pleased that collective EU ODA in 2014 reached EUR 58 billion, which is the highest ever absolute level. The percentage of the EU’s Gross National Income (GNI) spent as ODA in 2014 was 0.42 %. This is significantly higher than that of other OECD donors whose ODA averaged 0.28 % of GNI.

Whilst this clearly falls short of our 0.7 % target, the EU collectively has consistently accounted for about half of the global ODA as reported by the OECD. I think we can be proud of this achievement, especially during a period of serious budgetary constraints.

As the Commission Communication of 5 February sets out, the Commission believes that the EU should maintain its collective commitment to achieving the UN target of providing 0.7 % of GNI as ODA and should also commit to the 0.15 % to 0.20 % ODA target for Least Developed Countries.

The Commission will continue to call for a recommitment of these existing targets. A series of meetings with Member States are planned in order to facilitate agreement. However, it is ultimately for Member States to reach consensus on the issue and to put in place national plans for meeting these targets.

I was encouraged by the informal Council meeting of the Development Ministers in March, where the willingness of Member States to reach a common position and to uphold the EU’s place as world leader in development cooperation was very strong. I therefore hope that the Council will be able to adopt clear and compelling conclusions on the Global Partnership next month – including on the EU’s recommitment to the ODA targets.

I believe this commitment matters. I fully agree with Ms McAvan that an EU commitment to ODA will be important for the European Union’s development credibility as well as for the success of the international conferences in Addis Ababa, New York and Paris this year. At the same time, we must recognise that to finance such a far-reaching global agenda, the EU’s efforts alone will not be enough. If we aspire to a truly ambitious outcome from Addis Ababa and New York, I believe a commitment to reach the 0.7 % target should be made by all developed countries.

To ensure the diversity and volume of resources that will be needed by the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), Upper Middle-Income Countries and emerging economies should also commit themselves to increasing their financial contributions to the development of the poorest countries.

I would also like to note that ODA remains an important element in the overall financing available for developing countries, and in particular countries most in need. At the same time, we have to envisage a more strategic and functional role for ODA by using it in a catalytic manner to engage and leverage other financial and non-financial means of implementation that would suffice to cover such a broad new SDG agenda.

A few days ago, I was in Washington to attend the Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group. The discussions revealed a growing shared understanding that Official Development Assistance must be increasingly used so as to crowd in other funding sources.

Agreement was clear that we need a comprehensive financial package, comprising aid, investments and domestic resources, especially effective taxation systems; and that the key factor for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals is not only money, but also an enhancing framework of good policies and good governance. With these first considerations in mind I look forward to today’s discussion.

  Davor Ivo Stier, u ime kluba PPE. – Gospodine predsjedniče, gospodine povjereniče, na današnjoj raspravi o tragediji na Mediteranu svi su se složili da moramo pojačati razvojnu pomoć. Želio bih da se svi sjetimo te rasprave kada se na Vijeću bude raspravljalo o izdvajanju od 0,7 % domaćeg dohotka za službenu razvojnu pomoć.

Europski parlament, a i Europska komisija svoje su već rekli oko izdvajanja 0,7 %. Sada je vijeće na potezu. Naravno, potrebno je također reći da službena razvojna pomoć nije dovoljna za iskorjenjivanje ekstremnog siromaštva. Jasno je da nam je potrebna veća i bolja mobilizacija domaćih resursa. Npr. da zemlje u razvoju povećaju samo 1 % prikupljanje poreza, imali bi dvostruko više sredstava od službene razvojne pomoći koja dolazi iz EU-a, SAD-a ili drugih razvijenih zemalja.

Potrebno je također zaustaviti ilegalni odljev novca kojeg neke korumpirane elite vade iz svojih zemalja u sigurne bankovne račune na zapadu. No, sve to ne znači, ponavljam ne znači, da države članice Europske unije mogu odustati od službene razvojne pomoći u iznosu od 0,7 % domaćeg dohotka. Ono što je potrebno jest tražiti od ostalih razvijenih zemalja, ali isto tako od rastućih ekonomija da se više uključe u financiranje razvoja, i to ne samo u svrhu kupovanja utjecaja, već u promicanju svih razvojnih ciljeva kao što ih je pripremila UN-ova radna skupina.

(Govornik prihvaća odgovoriti na pitanje koje je postavljeno podizanjem plave kartice (članak 162. stavak 8. Poslovnika))

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE), pitanje koje je podizanjem plave kartice postavio. – Hvala Vam što ste prihvatli plavu karticu. Želim vas pitati slažete li se sa mnom da bi Europska unija, npr. u Adis Abebi i drugdje na forumima koji slijede, trebala pozvati druge bogate zemlje da se priključe nama u ovom velikom naporu kojega ulažemo da bismo pomogli najpotrebitijima, i mislite li da bi ta pomoć trebala biti i relativno ciljana, jer mi stalno govorimo o problemima koji izviru i dolaze do naših granica, kao što smo čuli jutros, i mislite li da bi ta pomoć zaista trebala biti na neki način, barem dijelom, vrlo ciljana?

  Davor Ivo Stier (PPE), odgovor na pitanje postavljeno podizanjem plave kartice. – Ja se slažem i s onim što je rekla predsjednica Odbora Linda McAvan da nam komitanje na 0,7 % domaćeg dohotka daje vjerodostojnost da možemo i od drugih razvijenih zemalja tražiti da to isto tako učine. S kolegicom Lolom Sánchez smo bili na jednom skupu u Washingtonu koji je organizirala Svjetska banka s parlamentarcima cijeloga svjeta i upravo smo mogli takvu poruku vjerodostojno i prenijeti, jer je Parlament zauzeo i takav stav.

Naravno, naša razvojna pomoć mora biti temeljena na vrijednostima, na poštivanju i na promicanju ljudskih prava i o tome smo također razgovarali. Kada jedna vlada ne želi možda to učiniti uvijek imamo prostora da djelujemo i da radimo s civilnim društvom.

  Pedro Silva Pereira, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, se a União Europeia quer estar à altura das suas responsabilidades e dos seus valores tem de liderar pelo exemplo. E quem lidera pelo exemplo não pode ficar à espera de saber o que os outros fazem. Liderar pelo exemplo significa assumir o compromisso de 0,7% para a ajuda ao desenvolvimento, mas significa também assumir um calendário que permita alcançar essa meta não num futuro longínquo mas até 2020.

Foi essa a proposta que apresentei no meu relatório na Comissão do Desenvolvimento, que foi aprovado por larga maioria, e espero que a Comissão, o Conselho e os Estados—Membros deem ouvidos ao Parlamento Europeu. Esta manhã, o Presidente da Comissão, Juncker, veio aqui dizer que é insuficiente a resposta que foi dada à crise do Mediterrâneo, porque é preciso reforçar a ajuda ao desenvolvimento. Pois o que está em causa é também saber se isso é para levar a sério. Porque se é para levar a sério então a Comissão, o Conselho e a União Europeia têm que assumir um compromisso concreto com o financiamento da ajuda pública ao desenvolvimento. É isso que está em causa e está em causa agora, antes ainda de começar a Conferência de Adis Abeba.

  Richard Sulík, za skupinu ECR – Vážený pán komisár Mimica, Európska únia už dnes dáva 0,42 % hrubého národného dôchodku na rozvojovú pomoc. To je výrazne viac ako ostatné krajiny OECD, ktoré dávajú len 0,28 %. Neviem, kto rozhodol, že práve číslo 0,7 % je to ideálne na rozvojovú pomoc, ale je evidentné, že v čase, keď Európska únia sa topí v dlhoch, kedy členské krajiny nemajú zaplatené desiatky miliárd faktúr, je takýto cieľ úplne mimo realitu. Navyše rozvojová pomoc je v mnohých prípadoch iba presun peňazí od chudobných ľudí v bohatých krajinách k bohatým ľuďom v chudobných krajinách. V roku 2012 iba 46 % rozvojovej pomoci skončilo skutočne v chudobných krajinách. Nehovoriac o plytvaní, ako napríklad Kongo, kde zlyhala viac ako polovica projektov. Je preto najvyšší čas prestať sa hrať na veľkého donora a prestať mať ciele, ktoré sú jednoducho nereálne.

   Lola Sánchez Caldentey, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor Presidente, se necesita financiación concreta para hacer frente a los retos que plantean la pobreza y la creciente desigualdad en el mundo. Parte de esa financiación debe ser necesariamente ayuda oficial al desarrollo, pues es el único flujo que responde a objetivos de desarrollo concretos.

Son muchos los países de la Unión que incumplen sus compromisos adquiridos de destinar el 0,7 % de nuestro PIB a esta ayuda. Incluso hay Estados que se permiten reducir la ayuda, como, por ejemplo, España, que ha presupuestado un ridículo 0,16 %. Pero, además, se está intentando inflar la ayuda con elementos que realmente no benefician a estos países y existe una tendencia a subordinar los objetivos de la ayuda al beneficio de las grandes empresas privadas europeas.

Con todo ello no solo no estamos fomentando el desarrollo, sino que estamos engañando al contribuyente. Por todo eso, pensamos que es necesario establecer una hoja de ruta vinculante para alcanzar el 0,7 % y considerar como ayuda al desarrollo solo los flujos reales a los países en desarrollo, así como cumplir con los compromisos internacionales de eficacia de la ayuda, para que estos recursos lleguen adonde tienen que llegar y no vuelvan a Europa con engaños y tergiversaciones.

  Heidi Hautala, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I believe that we should look at development financing including Official Development Assistance (ODA) rather as a global tax for the developing countries, because we are obliged to contribute to their overall development.

Unfortunately we tend to look at it more like any other budget line which can be reduced in times of economic crisis and recession, and I think this is ultimately wrong. We will also hurt our own societies if we do not help poor countries to grow and develop and create dignity for all. So that is the background of the question of the Development Committee: that there have been concerns, at this time, which certainly is economically difficult, that the European Union would shy away from its commitments and that it would not stick to the 0.7 % target with a timeline.

The problem clearly is that this would be looked at in a very negative way in the international conferences that Mrs McAvan, our Chair, has explained. For that aid, our ODA commitment, to be conditional on the contributions of other players in the world would send out a wrong signal. We know the detrimental consequences of these kinds of tactics from the climate negotiations, and that is why it has been extremely important that the European Union has been at the forefront in climate policy internationally. I do not believe that the others would be doing even that much if we had not done that – so let us not make that mistake in development financing.

  Ignazio Corrao, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario Mimica, noi ci troviamo colleghi nella situazione in cui lo 0,7 per cento del reddito nazionale lordo per l'aiuto allo sviluppo non viene rispettato dagli Stati membri, anzi vuole essere rinegoziato al ribasso. Credo che questa sia anche un'offesa al senso che noi diamo all'espressione "Stato in via di sviluppo". Se noi non pensiamo allo sviluppo non c'è più bisogno neanche di chiamarli "Stati in via di sviluppo", li possiamo chiamare "Stati da tenere sotto la soglia di povertà", "Stati poveri che vogliamo far rimanere poveri".

Quindi credo che quella quota sia una quota minima che dovrebbe essere tenuta come obbligatoria e dovrebbe essere rispettata da tutti, inoltre il questo tema dello sviluppo è relazionato in maniera molto vicina con il tema delle migrazioni, con il tema dell'emergenza che stiamo vivendo in questi giorni e per questo sarebbe importantissimo far sì che lo sviluppo sia effettivo in quei paesi. Noi abbiamo questa grande responsabilità che non dobbiamo perdere.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, la question du financement du nouveau cadre post-2015 pour le développement, qui sera adopté à New York en septembre, est bien évidemment cruciale.

Pour dire les choses comme elles sont, cela ne servira à rien d'avoir des objectifs ambitieux pour le développement durable si nous ne nous donnons pas les moyens financiers de les atteindre. En effet, si des engagements financiers crédibles ne sont pas pris, tout l'exercice de redéfinition de notre agenda pour le développement ne restera que des promesses écrites sur une feuille de papier.

Par mes amendements en commission du développement, j'ai soutenu à plusieurs reprises une position ambitieuse de l'Europe, y compris sur ce point. J'espère que la participation de l'Union à la conférence d'Addis Abeba du mois de juillet permettra de la concrétiser.

Je voudrais insister sur le fait que ce n'est pas seulement le niveau de notre engagement en matière d'aides publiques au développement qui assurera le succès des objectifs de développement durable, mais également notre capacité à trouver de nouvelles sources innovantes de financement et à mieux associer le secteur privé à cet effort. En effet, il faut vraiment trouver des moyens d'encourager le secteur privé à adopter une approche plus centrée sur le développement et à contribuer ainsi à nos efforts.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). – Señor Presidente; señor Comisario, esta mañana, en efecto, hemos discutido y debatido y aprobado una Resolución sobre los desastres humanos en el Mediterráneo. No se trata de gente que escurra el bulto, no se trata de gente que esté escapando de sus países para buscar simplemente una vida mejor: se trata de gente para la cual el único horizonte es la pobreza.

Y para combatir esa pobreza, hay que combatirla donde se produce: en la raíz. Por tanto, hay que incrementar la ayuda al desarrollo; el objetivo del 0,7 % tiene que ser un objetivo obligatorio para antes de 2020.

Pero no solamente se trata de dinero; el señor Comisario se ha referido a la buena gobernanza y a las buenas políticas. Yo haré también un énfasis en la lucha contra los prejuicios: el prejuicio de quienes creen que primero hay que ayudar a los nuestros, aunque nuestros pobres sean muchísimo menos pobres que los de otros países, y el prejuicio de los que creen que hay que esperar a que la deuda de los países ricos esté a cero para poder ayudar a los pobres.

  Marina Albiol Guzmán (GUE/NGL). – Señor Presidente, creo que es importante remarcar en este debate que todo el esfuerzo en el campo del desarrollo será inútil mientras se continúe exigiendo el pago de la deuda externa a los países empobrecidos, una deuda que es impagable, inmoral y también ilegítima porque, en muchos casos, se concedió a dictadores y a Gobiernos que utilizan y utilizaban los fondos para enriquecer a las élites.

La cantidad total de ayuda oficial al desarrollo es muy inferior a la cantidad anual que los países empobrecidos pagan a los del Norte en concepto de intereses de la deuda externa, cuando, en realidad, la deuda la tiene el Norte con el Sur: deuda ecológica por el expolio de sus recursos; deuda social por la explotación laboral; y deuda histórica por los años de colonización.

Así que la ayuda al desarrollo es una cuestión de justicia, y la Unión Europea está muy lejos de ese 0,7 %. Pero el Estado español todavía está más lejos: de hecho, en 2014, la ayuda al desarrollo representó solo el 0,17 % del producto interior bruto y va disminuyendo año tras año.

  Diane James (EFDD). – Mr President, from what I have heard this evening, I am concerned that we are not recognising the huge difference between humanitarian assistance in areas of disasters and true development aid. Development aid is notoriously prone to corruption and misuse. Arbitrary EU targets, minus any accountability or audit measures, will only worsen such abuse potential.

The model for development aid has changed massively over the last decade and a half – change initiated not least by China, with numerous examples on record in Africa and South America. The days of conditional development for EU economic, social and environmental objectives are well and truly over. We need to recognise that, accept that change and adapt accordingly. Whether 0.7% or 0.2%, I am not fussed about the target, because any target is absolutely meaningless if it not effective, productive, accountable – and I emphasise accountable – and non—conditional.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – Ms James, perhaps you have not noticed that in the past few years there has been a huge emphasis on accountability and openness of aid and, whether or not you would like to get to know some of those processes (which certainly should calm your concerns), it is true that, in previous decades, many mistakes were made – but also many lessons were learned. I am very happy to say that the European Union and its forefront Member States are really advanced in opening up aid and also correcting any mistakes which may have been found.

  Diane James (EFDD), blue-card answer. – I accept your challenge, but if you look at what happened to the United Kingdom over the last few weeks, there was a race to meet an arbitrary target and no accountability. That is endemic and indicative of exactly what is happening across lots of Member States in the European Union. So I remain very concerned that the accountability is just not there, and nor is the transparency.

  Bogdan Brunon Wenta (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pomoc na rzecz rozwoju to zarówno wyraz solidarności, jak i inwestycja w bezpieczniejszy i bardziej zrównoważony świat. Unia i państwa członkowskie to najwięksi darczyńcy na świecie. Wkład Unii w oficjalną pomoc rozwojową wynosi ponad połowę całego wkładu światowego. Niektóre kraje Unii podczas kryzysu ograniczyły wydatki pomocowe. Teraz łączna kwota wydaje się wzrastać. Nie osiąga ona jednak poziomu, jaki planowała Europa.

W roku 2015 przestaną obowiązywać milenijne cele rozwoju. Cele te, które były podstawą współpracy rozwojowej w ciągu ostatnich piętnastu lat, zostaną zastąpione we wrześniu br. na forum ONZ w Nowym Jorku ramami eliminacji ubóstwa i zrównoważonego rozwoju.

Dlatego rok 2015, jako Europejski Rok na rzecz Rozwoju, ma zasadnicze znaczenie dla zrównoważonego rozwoju. Oficjalna pomoc rozwojowa musi być kontynuowana i musimy starać się osiągnąć wyznaczony cel 0,7 %, jednak uważam, że niezwykle ważne jest też, aby wprowadzić inne formy innowacyjnego finansowania pomocy rozwojowej.

  Elly Schlein (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, siamo ancora i primi donatori al mondo, ma ci eravamo impegnati ad aumentare l'aiuto pubblico allo sviluppo fino allo 0,7% del reddito nazionale lordo e purtroppo siamo ancora lontani da questo obiettivo e ancora divisi.

Se alcuni Stati membri registrano un aumento, altri stanno facendo passi indietro. Aver mancato questo obiettivo e non riconfermarlo quest'anno, "Anno europeo dello sviluppo", anno della terza conferenza interazionale sul finanziamento allo sviluppo, anno in cui ridisegniamo i nuovi obiettivi di sviluppo sostenibile, e nei giorni in cui si discute tra l'altro come affrontare anche nel lungo termine quelle che sono le cause alla radice dei grandi flussi migratori come povertà e disuguaglianze, ecco, sarebbe un duro colpo per la credibilità dell'Unione, sarebbe inspiegabile.

Se vogliamo veramente che l'Europa assuma un ruolo guida nei prossimi negoziati non è accettabile l'approccio del "facciamo solo se lo fanno gli altri" e il fatto di legare il raggiungimento dell'obiettivo dello 0,7% con la definizione di scadenze temporali non può essere infatti assunto solo a condizione che altri paesi col reddito medio e altri paesi emergenti siano disposti ad assumere obiettivi altrettanto ambiziosi. Quindi, l'aiuto allo sviluppo non può essere un'altra vittima dell'austerità e credo che dovremmo riconfermare con convinzione questo obiettivo.

(L'oratrice accetta di rispondere a una domanda "cartellino blu" (articolo 162, paragrafo 8, del regolamento)).

  Richard Sulík (ECR), otázka položená zdvihnutím modrej karty – Pani kolegyňa Schlein, mohli by ste mi povedať, ako sa došlo na toto číslo 0,7 %? Prečo je práve 0,7 to ideálne číslo? Prečo nie 0,6 alebo 0,8? Kto to vyrátal?

  Elly Schlein (S&D), Risposta a una domanda "cartellino blu". – Onorevole collega, io non sono un'esperta di matematica o di economia ma so cosa vuol dire fissare obiettivi ambiziosi e importanti, come sono stati gli Obiettivi del Millennio che sicuramente erano obiettivi ambiziosi ma hanno portato a risultati concreti, così come hanno dimostrato i paesi che hanno raggiunto l'obiettivo dello 0,7% è possibile portare avanti risultati concreti. Quindi non mi fisserei tanto sulla cifra, ma penserei al risultato politico che possiamo ottenere nelle politiche dello sviluppo più efficaci che possiamo portare avanti.

  Joachim Zeller (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Bevor wir davon sprechen, was wir wieder erreichen wollen, sollten wir uns vor Augen führen, was wir nicht erreicht haben. Von den acht Millenniumszielen sind vier als nicht mehr erreichbar einzustufen, darunter auch das Versprechen der OECD-Länder, 0,7 % ihres Bruttonationaleinkommens für die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit – die Betonung liegt auf Zusammenarbeit – einzusetzen. Auch dieses Ziel wird deutlich unterschritten.

Anfang 1990 trugen die Menschen in Ostdeutschland Schilder mit der Aufschrift: Kommt die D-Mark nicht zu mir, so gehe ich zu ihr. Etwas Ähnliches erleben wir jetzt mit den Migranten und Flüchtlingen, die nach Europa drängen, und das zu Hunderttausenden, weil in ihren Heimatländern die Lebensgrundlagen für sie fehlen. Wenn wir jetzt nicht unser Versprechen erfüllen und den Menschen in den ärmsten Ländern helfen, unter fairen Bedingungen – und dazu zählen auch die Wirtschafts- und die Handelsbeziehungen – ihr Leben zu gestalten, dann wird kein Meer mehr zu tief und kein Zaun zu hoch sein, um sie davon abzuhalten, nach Europa zu kommen.

  Arne Lietz (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Seit der Verpflichtung der EU-Mitgliedstaaten im Jahr 2005, insgesamt 0,7 % ihres Bruttosozialproduktes für öffentliche Entwicklungshilfe bereitzustellen, ist wenig geschehen. Leider gehört auch so ein reiches Land wie Deutschland mit 0,4 % nicht zu den vier Mitgliedstaaten, die ihre Selbstverpflichtung von 0,7 % auch ernstgenommen haben. Dabei sind laut einer Umfrage der vergangenen Woche über 80 % der Deutschen für eine höhere finanzielle Unterstützung der Länder, aus denen die Flüchtlinge kommen. Es kann nicht sein, dass wir auf der einen Seite des Mittelmeeres verunglückte Flüchtlinge betrauern und auf der anderen Seite des Mittelmeeres aber zu wenig tun, um die Lebenssituation in ihren Herkunftsländern zu verbessern.

Mittel- und langfristig sollten wir das Ziel anstreben, dass die reichsten Länder der Erde, zu denen viele europäische Länder auch dazugehören, 1 % ihres Bruttosozialproduktes für die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ausgeben. Vor dem Hintergrund des Europäischen Jahres der Entwicklung sollten die Mitgliedstaaten endlich ihrer Verpflichtung nachkommen, zumindest die 0,7 % auch zu erfüllen.

Pytania z sali

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Mr President, it is always a pleasure to speak on such an important issue, assistance for development. In fact when speaking about assistance for development we speak about the EUʼs role, we speak about about influence, we speak about respect, we speak about the importance of our organisation, we speak about our values and promotion of our values, we speak about stability and peace, we speak about development.

If we truly want to make 2015 the Year of Development we must have a successful strategy – which I do not see yet very clearly – and powerful means to accomplish the Millennium Development Goals that we are negotiating this year. Considering the importance of official development assistance in assisting third-world countries to achieve a level of stabilisation and prosperity, I highly recommend that this Chamber votes in favour of the continuance of the commitment that Member States made in 2005.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η φτώχεια και η υπανάπτυξη έχει καθηλώσει εκατοντάδες εκατομμύρια συνανθρώπους μας παγκοσμίως. Η αναπτυξιακή βοήθεια που δίνει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δεν μπορεί να ανατρέψει αυτή την κατάσταση. Αν πραγματικά επιθυμούμε να συνεισφέρουμε σοβαρά στα ζητήματα του αναπτυσσόμενου κόσμου, τότε πρέπει να υπάρξει διαγραφή του κρατικού χρέους, δηλαδή των χρεών τους απέναντι στο Διεθνές Νομισματικό Ταμείο, την Παγκόσμια Τράπεζα και την Αφρικανική Τράπεζα Ανάπτυξης. Το θέμα αυτό το έθεσα στις 12 Σεπτεμβρίου με ερώτηση προς την Επιτροπή, έχοντας υπόψη μου ότι στις 9 Σεπτεμβρίου του 2014 εκδόθηκε ψήφισμα της Γενικής Συνέλευσής του Οργανισμού Ηνωμένων Εθνών που καθορίζει και ενισχύει τις διαδικασίες προκειμένου να υπάρξει μία βιώσιμη λύση στο ζήτημα του χρέους των αναπτυσσομένων χωρών και προκειμένου να πάψουν τα κράτη μέλη να αντιμετωπίζονται από τους διεθνείς πιστωτές ως επιχειρήσεις. Θεωρώ σημαντικό το γεγονός ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, η οποία μου απήντησε στις 22 Οκτωβρίου, εκτιμά επίσης ότι πρόκειται για ένα σημαντικό ψήφισμα του ΟΗΕ διότι εξετάζει τις διαδικασίες, στο πλαίσιο συζητήσεων με το Διεθνές Νομισματικό Ταμείο, που θα επιτρέψουν την αναδιάρθρωση του δημοσίου χρέους.

Το θέμα έχει πλέον τεθεί επί τάπητος και πρέπει να το αντιμετωπίσουμε. Είχα δηλώσει λόγου χάρη στις 11 Μαρτίου, σε αυτή την αίθουσα, ότι πρέπει να προχωρήσουμε σε διαγραφή του χρέους των χωρών της δυτικής Αφρικής που χτυπήθηκαν από τον Έμπολα, διότι δεν διαθέτουν σύστημα υγειονομικής και νοσοκομειακής περίθαλψης, ακριβώς επειδή το ΔΝΤ τους είχε επιβάλει να κάνουν περιορισμούς των δημοσίων δαπανών τους.

Επομένως, πρέπει να δούμε σοβαρά το ζήτημα της διαγραφής του χρέους των αναπτυσσόμενων χωρών.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to thank Linda McAvan for placing this debate on the agenda. I think it was a colleague from across the House who asked my colleague here about where this 0.7% came from. Well, it is actually from the Willy Brandt book ‘North-South: A Programme for Survival’, which I would suggest he reads, where in 1980 Willy Brandt said that 0.7% of GNP of developed countries should go to international aid by 1985.

In 2005 – 20 years on – Member States signed up to a 0.7% GNI target and, for new Member States, a 0.33% target. Ten years on, we are here tonight where we have an opportunity to fulfil our commitments with these international conferences in Addis Ababa, New York and Paris. So, 30 years since Willy Brandt spoke about 0.7% being reached by 1985, in this European Year of Development, we have this opportunity to fulfil Willy Brandt’s vision, and we should take that as we can and fulfil that vision.

  Richard Sulík (ECR). – Herr Präsident! Ich weiß immer noch nicht, wo diese Zahl 0,7 % hergekommen ist. Warum nicht 0,8 oder 0,6 %? Wenn wir sagen, noch mehr und noch mehr, dann sagen wir doch 3 %. Das klingt auch noch nach wenig. Aber bitte bedenken Sie doch eins: Wenn wir sagen, 0,7 % Entwicklungshilfe, 3 % Forschung und Entwicklung, 2 % Verteidigung, 5 % Bildung und was weiß ich noch alles, kommen wir auf mehr als 100 %. Ich bin immer wieder erstaunt über die Naivität dieses Parlaments. Offensichtlich wollen hier Leute Geld verteilen, die es nie verdient haben. Es ist ja kein Problem, fremdes Geld zu verteilen. Ich wäre wirklich sehr gespannt, wie viel vom eigenen Geld die verehrten Abgeordneten hier in die Entwicklungshilfe zahlen würden. Es ist vollkommen naiv, zu denken, dass Europa, welches Schulden bis zum Hals hat, jetzt noch mehr Geld für Entwicklungshilfe ausgeben soll. Es wäre nicht schlecht, wieder in die Realität zurückzukommen.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), blue-card question. – Sir, have you read Willy Brandt’s book ‘North-South: A Programme for Survival’?

  Richard Sulík (ECR), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Nein, ich habe dieses Buch nicht gelesen, so wie ich die meisten Bücher, die es gibt, nicht gelesen habe. Trotzdem weiß ich ganz genau, dass man nur das Geld ausgeben kann, das man selbst besitzt. Man kann natürlich verlangen: Geben wir mehr Geld für Entwicklungshilfe aus, die armen Leute brauchen das. Aber die EU ist nicht in der Lage, alles Leid aus der Welt zu schaffen.

  Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Domnule președinte, vreau să vă spun că vă vorbesc și în calitate de profesor specializat în domeniul cooperării pentru dezvoltare.

Acest obiectiv de 0,7 % s-a fixat în 1970 ca o decizie a mai multor state. Această sumă s-a calculat ca o metodă prin care, într-adevăr, putem să combatem sărăcia.

Am vrut și vreau să vorbesc astăzi, pentru că eu le predau studenților mei despre rolul Uniunii Europene în materie de cooperare pentru dezvoltare și le spun că Uniunea Europeană este principalul donator mondial, cu 55 % din donațiile mondiale și ei sunt mândri că sunt europeni! Le spun de obiectivul nostru este de 0,7 % și, de asemenea, sunt mândri de obiectivul nostru și că sunt europeni. Dar când le spun că nu atingem acest obiectiv, din păcate, nu mai sunt atât de mândri. Sunt dezamăgiți. Spun aceste lucruri pentru că aș vrea ca, plecând astăzi de aici, să pot să le spun că Comisia Europeană, Consiliul European și noi, Parlamentul European, facem ceva în așa fel încât rolul de lider al Uniunii Europene în materie să fie menținut și că, într-adevăr, acționăm pentru cei săraci. Pentru că sărăcia nu este departe de noi, este peste tot!

(Koniec pytań z sali)

  Neven Mimica, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I think the discussion here today has been very useful and raised some important points. I would like to thank Parliament for focusing on this important issue and I look forward to a future debate on this topic.

Your remarks have underlined to me even more strongly the importance of the EU maintaining bold leadership on Official Development Assistance (ODA), despite the budgetary challenges we face. Let me reiterate my commitment to making every effort to facilitate agreement on a recommitment to the ODA targets amongst our Member States.

Whilst I believe it is right that we also have expectations of others, we must be ready to play our full part in presenting our clear political commitment to ODA. But in closing, I wish to underline that what, beyond ODA, will really make the difference in terms of post-2015 implementation are good policies, domestic resource mobilisation, channelling the potential of the private sector and trade and innovation policies. In these areas too, the European Union is investing a lot of effort and will continue to do so.

It is only in this way that we will be able to rightfully claim that the European Union is not only the biggest player in global development cooperation but also the best, the most effective player.

  Zanda Kalniņa-Lukaševica, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I think the exchange we have just had shows the high importance of the respect institutions pay to the issue of Official Development Assistance (ODA) in the context of the global post-2015 negotiations. I will make sure that the views expressed are transmitted to the Council.

Many of you have called on the Member States to make immediate commitments. This invitation is being heard and taken very seriously. At the same time, I hope you will agree that decisions on ODA commitments and budget timetables are of high political sensitivity at national level. EU credibility will be at stake if we commit to something that we could fail to deliver by any specific date.

The Council is in the process of discussing the issue, both in terms of the conditions and the timing of recommitting. We want to take an informed decision. The Development Ministers are due to have a comprehensive discussion on 26 May 2015.

As I have already said, and Commissioner Mimica has confirmed, for the Addis Ababa conference we need a well-balanced package, of which ODA is just a part. Issues such as trade, remittance, support for domestic resources, mobilisation, and science, technology and innovation can be much more interesting for a whole range of developing countries than ODA, which should be directed to those most in need.

The coming months will be crucial in this respect. The Latvian Presidency remains committed to reaching a consolidated EU position in time so as to ensure a satisfactory outcome of the complex global negotiations ahead of us.

  Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.

(Posiedzenie zostało zawieszone na kilka minut)

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)

  Krzysztof Hetman (PPE), na piśmie. – Nie ulega wątpliwości, iż osiągnięcie ambitnych założeń wyznaczonych przez nowe cele zrównoważonego rozwoju wymaga od państw członkowskich intensywnych działań przy jednoczesnym zapewnieniu odpowiednio wysokiego i przewidywalnego ich finansowania. Uważam zatem, że utrzymanie kolektywnego zobowiązania Unii na poziomie 0,7% DNB oraz zobowiązania krajów, które przystąpiły do Unii w 2004 roku, na poziomie 0,33% DNB jest potrzebne i racjonalne. Zachęcam też Radę do podtrzymania tego zobowiązania podczas spotkania ministrów ds. rozwoju, które odbędzie się pod koniec maja. Ostatnie publikacje OECD wskazują wprawdzie, że w związku z kryzysem część krajów członkowskich zmuszona była zmniejszyć swój budżet na pomoc rozwojową, należy jednak pamiętać, iż mimo to Unia Europejska pozostaje największym donatorem na świecie, zaś przyznawana pomoc jest stabilna i systematycznie rośnie.