Teljes szöveg 
Eljárás : 2007/2594(RSP)
A dokumentum állapota a plenáris ülésen
Válasszon egy dokumentumot : B6-0310/2007

Előterjesztett szövegek :


Viták :

PV 11/07/2007 - 21
CRE 11/07/2007 - 21

Szavazatok :

PV 12/07/2007 - 6.14
A szavazatok indokolása

Elfogadott szövegek :


2007. július 11., szerda - Strasbourg Lektorált változat

21. Demokratikus kontroll a fejlesztési együttműködési eszköz keretében (vita)

  President. The next item is the Commission statement on democratic scrutiny under the Development Cooperation Instrument


  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Madam President, honourable Members, it is a great pleasure to be here. I would like to thank Parliament and, in particular, the members of the Development Committee for the constructive dialogue that we have been able to conduct in the framework of the democratic scrutiny of our draft strategy papers.

I have on several occasions, notably in my joint letter with my colleague, Louis Michel, to the chair of the Development Committee of 26 March, reiterated our commitment to carefully examining the committee’s observations on the strategy papers in the preparation of the annual action programmes and in the implementation of our projects and programmes. We are now in the preparation phase of these programmes. Some of them have already been forwarded to you and the remaining ones will be sent to you by this autumn in conformity with Article 8 of the Comitology Decision. Attached to these annual action programmes, you will also receive synoptic tables explaining in detail how your observations have been taken into account or why it was not feasible to do so.

Additionally, this week in a separate letter to Mr Borrell, I illustrated the manner in which we have considered your remarks and how these have been transposed in the annual action programmes that have already been sent to you. I am therefore somewhat disappointed to hear of a motion for a resolution critical of the Commission’s programming. I would hope that this will not call into question the spirit of open dialogue and cooperation that we are displaying and that we are ready to continue to pursue.

Please allow me now to address some of the issues raised by the Parliament on several occasions, notably in your motion for a resolution. We are, of course, fully committed to the overarching objective of poverty alleviation and the achievement of the millennium development goals under the Development Cooperation Instrument. I would like to point out very clearly that all activities planned under our country strategy papers are development activities and fall within the priority sectors identified in the DCI. It must be stressed at this point that the regulation also states that we need to pursue differentiated approaches depending on the individual development contacts and needs of every country concerned. The development needs of, for instance, Bangladesh are not the same as those of Brazil. We agree with Parliament’s view that health and education play a significant role in poverty eradication and the achievement of the millennium development goals.

At this point, I would like to reiterate the Commission’s commitment to respecting the agreed 20% benchmarking on social sectors by 2009 through project programmes or budget support linked to those sectors, taking an average across all the geographical areas. The first multiannual indicative programmes for 2007-2010 already show a clear contribution to the overall benchmark for basic health and education. The annual action programmes under approval for 2007 confirmed this. As soon as projects and programmes are in the implementation phase, we will provide Parliament with detailed statistics.

On official development assistance eligibility, I would like to reassure you that in the preparation of the annual action programmes we have ensured and will ensure full compliance with the DCI’s provisions regarding the OECD/DAC criteria for geographical programmes, whilst at the same time maintaining the flexibility provided for in the regulation for thematic programmes. Of course, an official assessment of this compliance will be made during the mid-term review which will start in 2009. The Commission intends to make proposals to modify the regulations if it considers it appropriate.

As regards stakeholder consultations, we are well aware that further improvements still need to take place in the consultation process, including the participation of local and regional authorities. It is, however, also a principle of our development assistance that it should be partner-country-led and contribute to the national development plans. So we are trying our utmost to encourage the national authorities in each country to consult their national parliaments, regional and local authorities and civil society on their own development plans as an expression of good governance.

Our annual action programmes will explain more clearly what we have done with regard to consultations. The recent annual action programme on Cambodia is a good example. As regards other donor activities, the Commission has provided all available information when presenting its strategy papers, as well as progress towards achieving the millennium development goals. Like you, we have every interest in obtaining an overall picture on the activities of all donors and we are making every effort to provide more information under a new standard mix.

Regarding the mainstreaming of cross-cutting issues such as the promotion of human rights, gender equality, democracy, good governance and environmental sustainability, of course we intend to do this. This has been a core objective for us since the very outset. Rest assured that we will put this into effect in the implementation phase.

Lastly, as far as your point on budget support is concerned, I would like to stress that the Commission applies strict eligibility criteria which are reassessed before each and every budget support disbursement. In the areas of policy and strategy, and of macroeconomic stability and public financial management, when selecting countries which should receive budget support, I have tried to deal with the main elements of your resolution. Please rest assured that you will receive detailed information on your observations when we send you the annual action programmes in the framework of your droit de regard under comitology. The Commission remains prepared to discuss the annual action programmes before the appropriate bodies of Parliament.


  Gay Mitchell, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, I very much appreciate the comments and the content of the Commissioner’s response here this evening. I have to say it is nothing less than that I would expect from her. I found during the whole DCI process, often when we got bogged down, that the Commissioner certainly was of great assistance in trying to move that situation on, as was her colleague, Commissioner Michel.

I am glad also to hear what she had to say about the annual action programmes because we really do need to deliver on the letter that Commissioner Ferrero Waldner and Commissioner Michel sent to Mrs Morgantini and myself as rapporteur on the DCI, because in that letter it was clear that Parliament would decide for itself what structures it would set up and the programmes and strategy papers it would examine.

I have to say also that given that the DCI was only approved last December and it is very much a new process for all of us, Parliament has hit the boards running. Where it has been hit and miss, I have heard some very bad reports of the attitude of some people in the Commission in relation to annual action programmes. In my own experience as chairman of group C, examining some of the Latin American countries, I have to say that the cooperation has been very good. And I think the Commissioner should encourage the continuation of good cooperation because it creates a good atmosphere all round and creates a very good working relationship. It allows us all to bring our best experience to addressing the issues which we all want to address, being the Millennium Development Goals and the needs of very poor people in a suffering part of the world.

I want to underscore the importance of the present period. A lot of work has been done by the Commission and by Parliament to enable the EU to better implement its development policies. Throughout the negotiations on the development cooperation instrument, we made it clear that we did not want to be involved in micro-management. Micro-management is for the Commission and Council but we do want to have oversight. It is right for Parliament to have oversight and the Commission should not fear any involvement of Parliament in that vein. We, the Commission and the Council should be partners in seeking to be effective, and not competitive and seeking to keep things secretively to ourselves. How can we cooperate to effectively deliver assistance to the countries we are trying to assist?

The first steps of the new DCI framework are being taken and we all have responsibilities to get it right. DCI has formalised structures, recognising the important function that Parliament should play in its role as overseer and adviser. We have worked hard scrutinising the strategy papers prepared by the Commission and to formulate positions on different aspects of those strategies. I expect the Commission to give careful consideration to effect our positions on the strategy papers.

As part of our oversight role, we must insist that policy continuously focus on the achievement of the MDGs, which aim to alleviate some of the worst forms of poverty in the world. Parliament continually needs to receive assurances to its satisfaction.

I was very impressed at the beginning of the year to hear from the German Presidency that they would forward the ACP papers to Parliament in the same way as they had forwarded the papers for the Asian and Latin American countries.

Now I understand that one Member State – although perhaps I am being unfair in this – raised some objection to that. I know there is a multiplicity of these papers and it sounds very good that this should be addressed in some way by the JPA or the ACP member states. But, unlike Parliament, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly and the African, Caribbean and Pacific House of that Assembly are not constantly in session, and the structures are not there to cope with that level of scrutiny.

We have three standing committees and perhaps we could on some selective audit basis pick some aspects of these and examine them. But that should not in any way interfere with the need of Parliament here to take what documents this Parliament wishes and to scrutinise them in the best way possible.

Our objective should always be to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. We are not in competition. We can work together. For two years, during the development cooperation instrument process, we tried to persuade the Commission and others that we were really in the business of trying to find a really good instrument. Eventually, when we were listened to, we found that instrument.

Commissioner, do not listen to bad advice. Do not listen to people who are creating obstacles. We are in the same team. We want to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Do not keep from Parliament information that it should rightly have in its oversight role. You will find that we will respond generously and effectively and helpfully.

Thank you very much for your contribution here this evening.


  President. Before I give the floor to Mr van den Berg, I note with some sorrow that, apparently, it will be his last speech in the Chamber tonight before he moves on to other things. I am sure we all wish you well, Mr van den Berg, although we are sorry to lose you.


  Margrietus van den Berg, namens de PSE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, ik steun collega Mitchell op het punt van de ACS-beleidsplannen. Per 1 januari van dit jaar is het nieuwe financieringsinstrument voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking van kracht geworden. De millenniumontwikkelingsdoelstellingen zouden centraal staan. Nu is het moment gekomen om eens te kijken of deze wetten en principes ook in de praktijk worden gebracht.

In de Commissie ontwikkelingssamenwerking hebben we in de afgelopen maanden een belangrijk deel van onze tijd gewijd aan de controle van de landenbeleidsdocumenten. Er is hard gewerkt in de commissies, in het Parlement, door de medewerkers, parlementsleden en secretariaten. We hebben de beleidsstrategieën voor landen, regio's, Zuid-Amerika, Azië, Zuid-Afrika nauwgezet gecontroleerd en wij hebben aan onze kant vastgesteld dat in zes specifieke gevallen op een totaal van heel veel plannen de basis onvoldoende lag in wetgeving en hebben die daarom geretourneerd via resoluties. In een aantal andere gevallen hebben we gereageerd met brieven en een aantal kwesties aan de orde gesteld.

Commissaris, gedurende het democratische controleproces zijn we bovendien tegen een aantal fundamentele problemen aangelopen, problemen waarmee u ongetwijfeld ook in de Commissie worstelt. Het primaire doel van het instrument voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking is het uitbannen van armoede en het verwezenlijken van de millenniumdoelstellingen. Dat is een overkoepelend doel en naar ons gevoel kwam dat toch niet helder genoeg in de landenbeleidsdocumenten naar voren, ten dele omdat ze ook nog de oude klank van de vroegere plannen uit de oude traditie hadden.

Nu wil ik de Commissie graag herinneren aan onze harde afspraak van 20%. Ik waardeer wat de commissaris daarnet gezegd heeft. Ze zegt: ik sta ervoor, die 20% worden in 2009 gehaald. Voorzitter, als dat zo duidelijk gezegd wordt, vertrouwen wij erop. Een hulpmiddel kan worden gevormd door de contracten inzake de millenniumontwikkelingsdoelstellingen. Begrotingssteun wordt immers gegeven en die moet natuurlijk aan de eisen voldoen, daarop heeft u terecht gewezen. Maar stel dat men het doet en men laat het parallel aan contracten inzake de millenniumontwikkelingsdoelstellingen verlopen. Dan betekent dat op zijn minst dat je van die regering weet dat die een aantal dingen op het gebied van basisonderwijs en gezondheidszorg doet. Dan kun je het ook terecht en veel duidelijker meetellen in je 20%. Anders blijft dat een zeer onduidelijke zaak.

Ook wil ik graag de aandacht vestigen op het feit dat komend jaar 50 miljoen uit de thematische lijn van het instrument voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking "Investeren in mensen" naar het Wereldfonds gaat. Het Wereldfonds is prima en dat steunen we. Vorig jaar was dat 62 miljoen. Het betekent echter in de praktijk dat je dan heel weinig van je geld overhoudt voor de andere doelen die allemaal in die wet staan. Als dat twee jaar achter elkaar gebeurt, loop je vast. Ik vraag daarvoor aandacht. Dat vergt overleg met de ACS-partners en het Europees Ontwikkelingsfonds.

Maar er moet iets gebeuren, anders ben je in wezen bezig met een lege huls van de thematische kant van "Investeren in mensen". Het Europees Parlement zal niet twijfelen om als het nodig is zijn begrotingsinstrument te gebruiken. Ralf Walter is actief op dat punt en - u kent hem - hij is een doortastende man op dat punt. Maar, commissaris, vanavond wilde ik niet de Max Mackie Messer uit de Dreigroschenoper spelen, want tenslotte bent u in light blue gekomen en ik in een goede stemming, want dit is mijn laatste speech.

En ik zou graag willen eindigen met een persoonlijke noot. Per 1 september ben ik, zoals u zei, Voorzitter, benoemd tot commissaris van de koningin in Groningen. Ik wil mijn collega's en medewerkers en allen in de Commissiesecretariaten heel hartelijk danken voor de geweldige steun die ik zowel van commissaris Michel als van commissaris Ferrero-Waldner gehad heb. Op 28 augustus hoop ik afscheid te nemen in het Parlement en u allen nog een keer terug te zien, maar voor dit moment: het ga u allen zeer goed.


  President. Thank you for your contribution to the work of this House.


  Mikel Irujo Amezaga, en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señora Presidenta, para el colega anterior ha sido su última intervención y para mí se trata de la primera en el Pleno. Espero que sea magnánima conmigo.

Debo comenzar recordando que el proceso de adopción del Reglamento que estableció el Instrumento de Cooperación al Desarrollo (ICD) se sabe que fue tortuoso, enrevesado y, en ocasiones, cuajado de muchas dificultades. De hecho, la primera respuesta que anunció este Parlamento con intención de rechazar la propuesta en sí fue adoptada ya en su día unánimemente por la Comisión de Desarrollo, apoyada de manera igualmente unánime por las otras tres comisiones que emitieron opiniones al respecto. Todo este planteamiento condujo a la Comisión y al Consejo a la mesa de negociación y, en última instancia, convenció a ambas Instituciones para que respetaran las facultades de codecisión del Parlamento. Todo esto ya lo sabemos.

Al final, obviamente, también sabemos que la propuesta fue aprobada, pero varios de los mismos motivos que crearon recelo hace más de un año siguen existiendo.

En lo que va de año, este Parlamento ha presentado tres resoluciones advirtiendo a la Comisión de que se estaba extralimitando en sus funciones y le ha solicitado que rectificase. Cosa que, por cierto, no ha hecho. Y no hace falta recordar a la Comisión qué es lo que puede suceder si se estira mucho la cuerda de la comitología con esta Cámara.

En definitiva, este Parlamento sigue sin ver las cosas claras y creo que el mero hecho de que esta resolución haya sido adoptada por unanimidad en la Comisión de Desarrollo es un hecho muy significativo.

Por ejemplo, el Reglamento ICD establece que «la Comunidad fomentará un proceso de desarrollo que el país socio dirija y haya hecho suyo», pero nos gustaría saber si ha habido contactos con los Parlamentos de estos países socios antes de la aprobación de documentos de estrategia y, si es así, si existen detalles de estas reuniones.

Asimismo, el Reglamento ICD apuesta por fomentar la inclusión y la participación, así como una amplia implicación de todos los sectores de la sociedad en el proceso de desarrollo y en el diálogo nacional, pero no tenemos información sobre si realmente ha habido esta serie de contactos o no.

Asimismo, consideramos que hay escasa o nula información sobre en qué porcentaje ha financiado el ICD estos documentos de estrategia. Queremos saber si estos documentos de estrategia han contado con otros fondos de financiación y, si es así, cuántos de ellos van a ser financiados por los mismos. En definitiva, ¿existen programas dentro de los documentos de estrategia que no han seguido un perfil desde el punto de vista de los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio, tal y como propugna el Reglamento ICD? Y, si es así, ¿cuánto dinero han percibido estos programas?

En nuestro Grupo seguimos teniendo éstas y muchas más dudas que tal vez serán aclaradas con estas comunicaciones a la Comisión de Desarrollo que usted acaba de anunciar que va a realizar, pero no olvidemos que el Reglamento ICD menciona hasta en siete ocasiones la transparencia como clave para el desarrollo de los programas. Consideramos que debemos predicar con el ejemplo y que la Comisión debería informar plenamente y con total claridad a este Parlamento para terminar de esta manera con la inquietud que ha producido la gestión de este Instrumento en los primeros seis meses.


  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE). – Arvoisa puhemies, viime vuonna Suomen puheenjohtajuuskaudella saavutimme merkittävän kompromissin kehitysyhteistyön rahoitusvälineestä, jonka myötä yhteisö pystyy jatkossakin täyttämään apusitoumuksensa ja takaamaan katkeamattoman ulkosuhderahoituksen.

DCI-asetus ottaa huomioon köyhyyden moniulotteisuuden. Se on siten toiveikas lähtökohta kehitysyhteistyöksi ja köyhyyden vähentämiseksi. Vuosituhattavoitteiden saavuttaminen vaatii täsmäaseita. Asetus vahvistaa ensimmäisenä säädöksenä OECD:n kehitysapukomitean antaman kehitysyhteistyöpolitiikan määritelmän. Tämä on keskeistä sen takaamiseksi, ettei kehitysyhteistyölle osoitettua talousarviota käytetä muiden poliittisten tavoitteiden saavuttamiseksi.

Valitettavasti käytäntö ei ole vastannut asetuksen sisältöä. Luonnoksissaan maakohtaisiksi strategia-asiakirjoiksi komission on toistuvasti ylittänyt toimeenpanovaltansa, eikä ole ottanut huomioon DCI:n tavoitteita. Parlamentti on päätöslauselmissaan puuttunut jo useasti siihen, ettei strategia-asiakirjaluonnosten päätavoitteena ole ollut köyhyyden poistaminen. Ne eivät ole siten vastanneet OECD:n kehitysapukomitean määrittelemiä virallisen kehitysavun vaatimuksia.

Komissio ei voi jatkossa ohittaa DCI:n keskeistä sisältöä ja OECD:n kehitysyhteistyöpolitiikan ydintä. Asetuksen mukaan rahoitus voi olla talousarviotukea vain, jos valtion julkisten menojen hoito on riittävän avointa. Tukikelpoisuuskriteerejä on sovellettava tiukasti. Ratkaisevaa on myös tukea kumppanivaltioiden parlamentaarista valvontaa. Valvonnan heikkous on kolmansissa maissa laajasti syynä siihen, ettei edustuksellinen demokratia kykene vastaamaan vahvojen hallitusten mielihaluihin.

Olen myös hieman pettynyt siihen, ettei komissio ole ollut omasta aloitteestaan kovin yhteistyöhaluinen. Komission on syytä muistaa, että Euroopan parlamentilla on tarpeellinen rooli DCI:n täytäntöönpanossa.


  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – Pela primeira vez, no âmbito deste novo instrumento, o Parlamento exerceu um papel de escrutínio das estratégias nacionais. Julgo que o diálogo entre o Parlamento e a Comissão foi muito construtivo e deve servir de modelo para outras colaborações possíveis e desejáveis, como no caso dos países ACP. No entanto, poderemos ainda melhorar a cooperação entre as duas instituições, nomeadamente no que diz respeito à partilha de informações.

O Parlamento considera particularmente importante receber esclarecimentos sobre a forma como as várias estratégias nacionais podem, no seu conjunto, contribuir para o compromisso financeiro de atribuir 20% dos fundos disponíveis aos cuidados básicos de saúde e à educação. Em relação às prioridades indicadas em vários documentos de estratégia nacional, lamento que, de uma forma geral, não exista um maior investimento nos objectivos de desenvolvimento do Milénio. O objectivo deste instrumento financeiro é o combate à pobreza, em particular através da concretização destes objectivos. Vários dos documentos de estratégia nacional incluem actividades ligadas ao comércio, ao ensino superior, à aviação civil e até à promoção da União Europeia nos países receptores.

O Parlamento compreende a importância de algumas destas acções designadamente para as autoridades dos países em causa. Julgo, no entanto, que a nossa prioridade, a prioridade da Comissão, devem ser as actividades que estão relacionadas directamente com a concretização dos objectivos de desenvolvimento do Milénio que têm um impacto muito mais directo no combate à pobreza. Estas deviam ser a prioridade. Estas não podem ser omitidas, como acontece em alguns casos.

Recordo que o Parlamento não recebeu uma resposta a todas as perguntas dirigidas à Comissão durante este processo. Estou certa de que as receberemos, como aliás nos disse hoje a Sra. Comissária, e, por isso, lhe agradeço.

I am sorry to see Mr van den Berg go, as you mentioned, Madam President. Nobody is irreplaceable, but there are people who are more easily replaceable than others. That is certainly not the case with Max! We Socialists, in particular, will miss him a lot.


  Josep Borrell Fontelles (PSE). – Señora Presidenta, señora Comisaria, usted sabe muy bien que el análisis de la aplicación del ICD es hoy una parte muy importante del trabajo de la comisión que me honro en presidir.

Le damos mucha importancia a este proceso y esperamos, en contrapartida, que la Comisión tome plenamente en consideración las observaciones que le hace el Parlamento.

El Parlamento, en particular, tiene que estar vigilante para que el objetivo fundamental del ICD, es decir, la erradicación de la pobreza, se consiga y que los fondos destinados a este instrumento se dediquen fundamentalmente a esta actividad, y, en particular, a que se alcance ese 20 % dedicado a la educación y a la salud. Y todavía no vemos muy claro cómo podremos conseguir ese objetivo del 20 % para el año 2009.

Señora Comisaria, es muy importante que todos los agentes involucrados sean consultados y que las políticas de tipo horizontal, como es la promoción de los derechos humanos, la igualdad de género, la buena gobernanza, los derechos de los niños y, sobre todo también, de los pueblos indígenas, la sostenibilidad ambiental y la lucha contra las enfermedades como el sida, sean también adecuadamente tomados en cuenta en todos los programas y para todos los países.

Eso es lo que pretendemos conseguir con nuestro trabajo de análisis democrático de las propuestas que ustedes nos hacen y esperamos que nuestra aportación y el trabajo que en ella invertimos con la mejor de las voluntades y el mejor deseo de cooperación sean reflejados en los planes de acción anuales.


  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. Madam President, we have done a lot of work together, and, at least in my view, it has been a constructive dialogue under this democratic scrutiny. It has included numerous parliamentary debates and many exchanges of views between distinguished Members of this House, myself, my colleague Louis Michel and many Commission officials. We have exchanged a series of letters – the last one, as I have said, to Mr Borrell Fontelles. As has been mentioned, three parliamentary resolutions have been voted on, with a fourth currently under discussion.

Now we are entering a new phase: the implementation of projects and programmes, where each institution will have to play its specific role. I agree with Mr Mitchell, who said that Parliament is responsible for oversight. We absolutely agree with that, but not with micro-management, and we will give Parliament – you can be sure – a maximum amount of information.

To Mr van den Berg, I would say that, first of all, we would like to pay tribute to the great work that you have been doing on development issues, but also, particularly, as chief observer on difficult missions. I have appreciated very strongly your balanced approach to that.

As regards the specific issue that we are discussing tonight – the consultation on the thematic programme, investing in people – I will inform Louis Michel of the request for consultation within and with the ACP partners, as has been mentioned.

For the rest, I can only say that we have really tried to take things into account. But, please, give us credit also for being a responsible organisation and responsible stakeholders on this scene. If we can work as partners, you will have a very responsible partner.


  President. I have received one motion for resolution(1) to wind up the debate.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 12 July 2007.


(1)See Minutes.

Utolsó frissítés: 2007. augusztus 2.Jogi nyilatkozat