REPORT on the Challenge of EU Development Cooperation Policy for the New Member States
12.2.2008 - (2007/2140(INI))
Committee on Development
Rapporteur: Danutė Budreikaitė
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
on the challenges of EU development cooperation policy for the new Member States
The European Parliament,
Development cooperation legislation
– having regard to Articles 177 to 181 of the EC Treaty,
– having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000[1] (the "Cotonou Agreement"), as amended by the Agreement amending the Partnership Agreement signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005[2],
– having regard to the Millennium Declaration adopted by the United Nations in 2000, the 2005 UN Report entitled 'Investing in Development' and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
– having regard to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness adopted on 2 March 2005,
– having regard to the 2002 Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development,
– having regard to the Joint statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on European Union Development Policy: 'The European Consensus' (the European Consensus on Development)[3],
- having regard to the joint statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission: 'The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid',
- having regard to the conclusions of the Council and of the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council of 15 May 2007 on an EU Code of Conduct on Complementarity and Division of Labour in Development Policy,
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled 'Policy Coherence for Development: Accelerating progress towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals' (COM(2005)0134),
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled 'Accelerating progress towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals - Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness' (COM(2005)0133),
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled 'EU Aid: Delivering more, better and faster' (COM(2006)0087) and the conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 11 April 2006 based thereon,
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled 'Annual Report 2006 on the European Community's Development Policy and the Implementation of External Assistance' (COM(2006)0326),
– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation[4],
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled 'Governance in the European Consensus on Development: Towards a harmonised approach within European Union' (COM(2006)0421),
– having regard to the international development cooperation policy of the Czech Republic, including the Plan for Bilateral Development Cooperation 2007 and the country strategy papers for Angola and Zambia,
– having regard to the international development cooperation policy of Hungary,
– having regard to the development cooperation policy programme of Latvia for 2006 to 2010,
– having regard to the development cooperation policy of Lithuania for 2006 to 2010,
- having regard to the development co-operation and humanitarian aid strategy of Estonia for 2006 to 2010,
– having regard to the strategy for Poland's development cooperation issued in 2003 and the Polish aid programme 2007,
– having regard to the national strategy of international development cooperation of Romania,
– having regard to the medium-term strategy for Slovak Official Development Assistance (ODA) 2003 to 2008 and the 2006 official development assistance national programme of Slovakia,
– having regard to Slovenian development cooperation for 2002 to 2004,
– having regard to the 2007 Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) Aid Watch report entitled 'Hold the Applause! EU governments risk breaking aid promises' by the European NGO confederation for relief and development (CONCORD), which includes an NGO assessment of each Member State's performance in terms of ODA,
– having regard to the EU strategy for Central Asia (Strategy for a New Partnership) 2007 to 2013,
- having regard to 'The European Consensus on Development: the Contribution of Development Education and Awareness Raising', a strategy framework drawn up by representatives of the EU institutions, the Member States, civil society and other stakeholders, and presented at the European Development Days in Lisbon in November 2007,
– having regard to the European Consensus on NGO Communication held from 7 to 9 November 2006,
– having regard to the EU Council of Development Ministers' Resolution on development education,
– having regard to the Maastricht Declaration by the Europe-wide Global Education Congress of 15 to 17 November 2002 representing parliamentarians, local and regional authorities and civil society organisations from the member states of the Council of Europe on a European Strategy Framework for Improving and Increasing Global Education in Europe to the Year 2015,
– having regard to the Palermo Process of 2003, which was launched with a view to creating an informal forum in which players could debate major developments and issues in European development aid in order to complement, informally, the Commission's official consultation procedures,
– having regard to the European Conference on Awareness-Raising and Development Education for North-South Solidarity held in Brussels on 19 and 20 May 2005,
– having regard to the Helsinki Conference on European Development Education held in July 2006,
– having regard to the 18-month programme on development policy of the German, Portuguese and Slovenian Presidencies,
– having regard to Article 49 of the EU Treaty,
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled 'Wider Europe - Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours' (COM(2003)0104) and Parliament's resolution of 20 November 2003 on Wider Europe - Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours[5],
– having regard to 'A Secure Europe In A Better World - The European Security Strategy' approved by the European Council in Brussels on 12 December 2003,
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled 'European Neighbourhood Policy - Strategy Paper' (COM(2004)0373),
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled 'On the Commission Proposal for Action Plans Under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)' (COM(2004)0795),
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled 'European Neighbourhood Policy - Recommendations for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and for Egypt and Lebanon' (COM(2005)0072),
– having regard to the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament entitled 'On Strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy' (COM(2006)0726),
– having regard to the Action Plan for the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) adopted by the Commission on 14 November 2006,
– having regard to the Commission staff working document accompanying its above mentioned communication entitled 'On Strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy' (SEC(2006)1504),
– having regard to the Commission staff working document annexed to its communication entitled 'Annual Report 2007 on the European Community's Development Policy and the Implementation of External Assistance in 2006' (SEC(2007)0840)[6],
– having regard to the ENP progress reports on Ukraine (SEC(2006)1505) and Moldova (SEC(2006)1506),
– having regard to the Commission publication of 24 November 2005 entitled 'European Neighbourhood Policy: A Year of Progress' (IP/05/1467),
– having regard to the communication to the College from Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner entitled 'Implementing and Promoting the European Neighbourhood Policy' (SEC(2005)1521),
– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument[7] (ENPI),
– having regard to Council Decision 2006/62/EC of 23 January 2006 enabling countries covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy, as well as Russia, to benefit from the Technical Assistance and Information Exchange (TAIEX) Programme[8],
– having regard to Council Decision 2005/47/EC of 22 December 2004 amending Decision 2000/24/EC to take into account the enlargement of the European Union and the European Neighbourhood Policy[9],
– having regard to the report entitled 'European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument' Belarus/Moldova/Ukraine/Armenia/Azerbaijan/Georgia (separately): Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013 and National Indicative Programme 2007-2010',
– having regard to EC-ENPI Eastern Regional Strategy Paper (RSP) 2007-2013, which complements the Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) adopted by the Commission,
– having regard to the ENPI Eastern Regional Indicative Programme (IP) 2007-2010, which defines in more detail the focus of intervention under the Eastern regional envelope of the new ENPI,
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled 'Black Sea Synergy-A New Regional Cooperation Initiative' (COM(2007)0160),
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled 'On the General Approach to Enable ENP Partner Countries to Participate in Community Agencies and Community Programmes' (COM(2006)0724),
– having regard to the Occasional Papers of the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs of June 2006 entitled 'European Neighbourhood Policy: Economic Review of ENP Countries',
– having regard to Capacity Building Scheme II (CBSII) to support the new Member States and candidate countries in the area of development cooperation, launched by the Commission in July 2007,
– having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2006 on the European Neighbourhood Policy[10],
– having regard to partnership and cooperation agreements (PCAs),
– having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Development (A6‑0036/2008),
General comments
A. whereas in 2006 the EU provided ODA of EUR 47 524 million, which accounts for 57 % of ODA worldwide, a figure which is expected to rise to EUR 78 626 million by 2010,
B. whereas the new Member States have committed themselves to achieving an ODA target of 0.17 % of gross national income (GNI) by 2010 and of 0.33% by 2015, with future contributions to strengthen the EU's role in international development cooperation,
C. whereas the development aid of the new Member States concerns European development cooperation policy as well as the European Neighbourhood Policy,
D. whereas the priority countries targeted by the development cooperation of the new Member States are the Community of Independent States (CIS) countries and the countries in the Western Balkans, as well as a few countries which are members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP),
E. whereas the institutional framework remains one of the most important challenges of efficient development cooperation for the new Member States,
F. whereas one of the major challenges facing the new Member States is the need to build up cross-party political and public support for development co-operation, including support for the least developed countries of the world,
G. whereas awareness of development co-operation topics needs further improvement in most of the Member States,
H. whereas the right of Member States to pursue development strategies as shaped by their nationally determined priorities is a fully legitimate expression of their sovereignty and should always be acknowledged and respected as such,
Priority countries for the new Member State
I. whereas the major part of the bilateral ODA of Estonia and Latvia is targeted at CIS countries, especially Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, and Afghanistan; whereas Estonia's ODA spending in 2005 was 0.08% and Latvia's ODA spending in 2005 was 0.07%,
J. whereas the major part of the bilateral ODA of Lithuania is targeted at Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, the countries of the South Caucasus, Afghanistan (Ghor province) and Iraq, and only one ACP country, Mauritania, and in 2005 Lithuania spent 0.06% on ODA,
K. whereas the major part of the bilateral ODA of Poland is targeted at Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, and Poland's ODA in 2005 amounted to 0.07%,
L. whereas the major part of the bilateral ODA of Hungary is targeted at the Western Balkans (Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina), and in 2005 Hungary's ODA spending was 0.11%,
M. whereas the major part of the bilateral ODA of Romania is targeted at Moldova, Serbia and Georgia, and Romania's ODA amounted to 0.04% in 2006,
N. whereas the major part of the bilateral ODA of Slovenia is targeted at the Western Balkans (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania) and Moldova, and in 2005 Slovenia spent 0.11% on ODA,
O. whereas the major part of the bilateral ODA of Slovakia is targeted at Serbia, Montenegro, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus, and Slovakia's ODA spending in 2005 was 0.12%,
P. whereas the major part of the bilateral ODA of the Czech Republic is targeted at Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova, Mongolia, Serbia, Montenegro and Vietnam, and in 2005 the Czech Republic spent 0.11% on ODA,
Q. whereas Bulgaria adopted its national strategy for development cooperation only at the end of 2007, and its priorities lie with Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine and Moldova, and its ODA spending for 2005 is estimated to be around 0.04%, which equals Bulgaria's contribution to multilateral institutions,
Relationship between the new Member States and the ACP countries
R. whereas Estonia, Latvia and Romania do not target any ACP countries under European development cooperation policy; although Estonia has not ruled out that in future it will establish bilateral co-operation with one least developed sub-Saharan African state,
S. whereas Bulgaria intends to target African countries with which it had bilateral agreements before 1989, such as Ghana,
T. whereas the Czech Republic targets Angola and Zambia, with Angola receiving 8% (EUR 956 000 in 2007) and Zambia 4% (EUR 775 000 in 2007) of allocated funds; whereas in Angola it funds programmes in the sectors of agriculture and rural development and education and cross-cutting programmes such as mine-clearance, strengthening public sector capacity and promoting civil society and gender equality, as well as the environment; whereas in Zambia it funds programmes in the health sector aimed at achieving MDGs such as reducing child mortality, improving maternal health and combating HIV/AIDS and other diseases, targeting the Western province, which has a particularly hostile natural environment,
U. whereas Hungary targets Ethiopia, and Poland targets mainly Angola and Tanzania,
V. whereas Slovakia targets Kenya, Sudan and Mozambique, the business and health sectors in Kenya, and offers support for the use of renewable resources; whereas its development cooperation with Sudan involves debt-reduction and targets technical infrastructure such as water management, and the social sector, especially fostering primary education and basic healthcare,
W. whereas Slovenia intends to target Madagascar, Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Uganda and Malawi through Slovenian non-governmental development organisations (NGDOs) and to assist local communities in sectors such as infrastructure, education, water, sanitation and sustainable energy supply,
X. whereas in 2006 Lithuania initiated its first bilateral project in Mauritania (assistance with the development of natural resources),
Y whereas in all the new Member States, a considerable share of development aid is channelled through multilateral channels including the EU, and thus all those countries contribute indirectly to the development of ACP countries,
Relationship between the new Member States and their neighbours
Z. whereas the ENP is one of the top priorities of the EU's external relations, with the aim of promoting good governance and economic development in its vicinity and thus decreasing political, economic and social differences between the EU 27 and their neighbours,
AA. whereas the ENP Action Plans for the three South Caucasus states (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan) were released on 14 November 2006, despite the fact that the inclusion of the South Caucasus countries in the ENP had initially been rejected in a footnote in the above mentioned Commission communication on a wider Europe,
AB. whereas the Action Plans are supposed to be tailor-made for each country,
AC. whereas the EU traditionally favours a regional approach in its external relations,
AD. whereas the Georgian government expresses the hope that Georgia will be included in the Black Sea region, with Ukraine and Moldova, rather than in the South Caucasus region, which has also been acknowledged in the Action Plan,
AE. whereas the EU-Georgia Action Plan shows that EU is ready to offer some increased political support to Georgia in the area of conflict resolution, which it has refused up until now,
AF. whereas the new Member States were involved in developing the ENP before their membership of the EU,
AG. whereas the new Member States did not have any influence on the Action Plans, nor were they involved in decision-making and procedure before membership,
AH. whereas in order to sign up to the ENP, neighbouring countries have to have a contractual relationship in force, such as a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement or an Association Agreement; thus Belarus, Libya and Syria are excluded from the ENP because they do not have any contractual relationship in force,
AI. whereas the EU aims at a balanced bilateral and regional approach towards Central Asia,
AJ. whereas the relationship between Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and the EU is based upon Partnership and Cooperation Agreements and cooperation frameworks such as the BAKU initiative, as well as a variety of Common Security and Foreign Policy instruments,
AK. whereas all the neighbours, irrespective of the issue of possible membership, have an equal opportunity to establish privileged relationships with the EU that are founded on both common interests and common values, according to their own aspirations,
AL. whereas the main advantage of the Action Plans is to help the country in question to identify priorities and to guide the EU's support for its efforts,
AM. whereas Bulgaria and Romania are already included in cross-border cooperation with relevant ENP partners,
AN. whereas the new Member States' role in sharing the transition experience will be harnessed and will contribute to expertise within the old Member States through the TAIEX and twinning programmes,
Raising public awareness
AO. whereas the current level of expenditure in most countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for raising public awareness of development issues totals approximately EUR 190 million, or 0.25% of total ODA,
AP. whereas all the new Member States, with the exception of Poland and Malta, regard development education as a priority for their NGDO national platforms,
AQ. whereas none of the new Member States has a national strategy on development education as yet,
AR. whereas only 12 % of OECD citizens have actually heard of the MDGs, 62 % of those who have heard of the MDGs are not aware of what they mean, 17% of Europeans do not know, in the light of corruption and the perception that aid does not benefit the poor, whether aid makes a difference (a figure which rises to 34% in Portugal, 24% in Italy, 23% in Ireland and 22% in Spain),
AS. whereas only 29 % of Europeans think that a reduction in extreme poverty and hunger will be achieved by 2015, the most frequently cited obstacles being lack of money or resources (18 %), lack of will (18 %) and the magnitude of the task ahead (14 %),
AT. whereas a United Nations Development Programme report has proposed that the European Commission and the EU Member States move towards or beyond a figure of 3% of ODA as a minimum target for public awareness raising and development education expenditure,
1. Stresses that development policy is entirely part of the acquis communautaire and recalls the new Member States' international commitments in this field; underlines that the EU needs to support the new Member States so as to assist them in integrating the acquis communautaire;
2. Considers that the new Member States signed the European Consensus on Development in the year of enlargement in 2004, agreeing to implement an ambitious development paradigm and to work towards achieving the MDGs within the set time-frame;
3. Expresses its concern that many of the new Member States are not on course to meet the target of 0.17% of GNI to be spent on ODA by 2010, but some may see ODA fall in line with overall budget cuts due to the need to reduce government debt;
4. Stresses the experience of the new Member States, in particular during the transition process, and considers that good governance and the promotion of democracy must be the priorities in development cooperation matters for the EU; calls on the EU institutions to put to good use, in order to enrich its development policy, the experience accumulated in the field by the new Member States;
5. Considers that, due to an active cooperation policy, the new Member States will contribute to the promotion of respect for fundamental rights and solidarity with the new generations in third countries within the scope of the ENP,
6. Stresses the concrete benefit for the new Member States of participating in development cooperation policy, in particular in the areas of economic development and trade;
7. Welcomes the Commission's new approach of going beyond traditional development policies and creating new partnership relations with developing countries;
8. Welcomes the fact that the international community is willing to accept the principle of 'common responsibility' in the case of humanitarian urgency;
9. Suggests that the new and old Member States should work together more proactively within the EU to ensure that the situation in particular countries included in the ENP is monitored in a more timely fashion so that the EU can react with greater flexibility in its policy towards these countries;
10. Stresses the link between development and migration, which is a major challenge for most of the new Member States which are at the external borders of the EU;
11. Recognises the progress made by the new Member States in their evolution from being aid recipient countries to becoming donor countries, and acknowledges the challenges that lie ahead;
12. Notes that the priorities of the new Member States after the transition period are determined by their historical relations and lie with their neighbours, and that the major part of the development cooperation budget of the new Member States targets their immediate neighbours and the CIS countries; calls on the EU to seize the occasion of the accession of the new Member States to reinforce its strategic presence in eastern Europe, central Asia and the Caucasus as regions of the world hitherto less concerned by European aid but which are nonetheless facing numerous development challenges;
13. Stresses that effective action in the promotion of democracy and the rule of law, key fields of intervention for the new Member States, is also a means of acting in the long term for poverty reduction, which is a priority objective of EU development policy as fixed by the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI);
14. Recalls the Eastern dimension of EU external relations and considers that a new assembly of EU and neighbouring countries (similar to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Euromed) and the Parliamentary Assembly for EU-Latin America (Eurolat)) could build on historic experience, boost the input of the new Member States in EU politics and help to co-shape the ENP and to make neighbour countries aware of new political fields;
15. Recognises that most Member States have departments within their Ministries of Foreign Affairs dealing specifically with development cooperation, but nonetheless recommends that they strengthen coordination both within their own ministries and between each other and with other Member States to the extent approved by national parliaments and local authorities in the decision-making process;
16. Recognises that building the relevant institutions and implementing policies is a time-consuming process;
17. Recognises that the biggest challenges for the new Member States in the coming years will be the increase in budgets and awareness-raising activities;
18. Welcomes the above-mentioned 'European Consensus on Development: The Contribution of Development Education and Awareness Raising' and stresses that Parliament has an important role to play in highlighting the actual and potential role of development education and awareness in both formal and informal education in the new Member States;
19. Considers that long-term projects which target partners and sectors where the new Member States have a comparative advantage and can transfer experience are of optimal utility in the global poverty eradication process;
20 Calls for a division of labour between the Member States with regard to the added-value of each actor's input and with the objective of working together effectively;
21. Believes that a large majority of the new Member States could give greater priority to their development policy and furthermore ensure an approach to strategy planning with greater internal coordination (with the exception of Lithuania, where the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the lead ministry for ODA planning and management);
22. States that the objective of the EU with regard to the new Member States is not only to capitalise on their experience but also to help them strengthen their role as new donors; encourages, therefore, the old and new Member States to decide jointly on a realistic calendar with a view to bringing the new Member States into line with the EU's development aid objectives, while taking due account of both the potential and the limits of the partnership between new and old Member States;
23. Stresses that the new Member States need to be fully included in the sharing of experience and in specific training in fields related to the programming, implementation and evaluation of development cooperation policy; recalls the different CBS (Capacity Building Scheme) experiences and calls for further improvements, to stop for instance the turnover of civil servants;
24. Recalls the importance of a permanent dialogue with officials responsible for the new Member States and acceding or candidate countries; underlines the importance of EuropeAid's technical assistance in the organisation of training courses, seminars, conferences and specific technical assistance to meet the needs expressed by these countries; stresses the importance of the activities funded by the Development Directorate-General in this regard;
25. Regrets the fact that the special working party on strengthening the new Member States' capacities held no further meetings in 2007, even though the new Member States have a pressing need to increase their development-cooperation capacities and the EU enlargement process is still under way;
26. Calls for that working party to be reactivated and for it to be ensured that representatives of the European Parliament's Committee on Development (or its secretariat) and of TRIALOG (a project conducted in close cooperation with European development NGOs) are also involved in the working party's activities, and that the working party's remit is enlarged to include the new Member States' specific development-cooperation problems;
27. Stresses the importance of projects on "twinning" and "light twinning" in training the personnel of new Member States through quality technical assistance, funds which only Hungary and Slovakia have called for;
28. Calls for bi-annual inter-parliamentary meetings between the European Parliament and the parliaments of the new Member States focused on development and cooperation issues and the creation of a specific network in this regard;
29. Believes that the participation of the new Member States in the European Development Fund committee would bring an additional dimension to the debates and further help to build their technical capacities;
30. Notes the lack of public recognition of development cooperation priorities in some of the new Member States and calls for an overall communication and education strategy to remedy this deficit; stresses the importance of raising awareness of development issues in school curricula, as well as the role of the media in creating public awareness and developing an international volunteer tradition;
31. Takes a positive view on the importance of a report on development education awareness raising and its role in the implementation of the European Consensus on Development, highlighting the actual and potential role of development education and awareness raising in formal and informal education in Europe, especially in the new Member States;
32. Considers that the public in the new Member States is already aware of humanitarian aid issues, as was demonstrated by their large-scale mobilisation over the 2004 tsunami - a starting-point for making people aware of the need for specific longer-term commitments within an effective development policy;
33. Calls on the Commission to launch a specific awareness-raising campaign focusing on the comparative advantages and added value of the new Member States with regard to cooperation and development issues;
34. Calls for greater coordination among the relevant national stakeholders and an appropriate involvement on the part of NGOs and local authorities in national policy-making processes;
35. Calls on the Commission to actively involve the new Member States in the preparation and negotiation of Action Plans, and in monitoring their implementation;
36. Notes that, by fully untying their development aid, the new Member States could be a positive example for all Member States;
37. Notes that all Member States should set deadlines to untie their development aid, since in the long term tied development aid neither serves good governance nor the efficient allocation of resources, and does not contribute to the goals of development cooperation;
38 Notes that the links between the private sector and development cooperation constitute a promising new avenue for the new Member States, and that a more active participation on the part of private undertakings from those Member States in the procurement of development cooperation projects at EU level could raise awareness of development cooperation;
°
° °
39. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.
- [1] OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3. Agreement last amended by Decision No 1/2006 of the ACP-EC Council of Ministers (OJ L 247, 9.9.2006, p. 22).
- [2] OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p.27
- [3] OJ C 46, 24.2.2006, p.1.
- [4] OJ L 378, 27.12.2006, p. 41.
- [5] OJ C 87 E, 7.4.2004, p. 506.
- [6] Annexed to the Commission communication entitled 'Annual report 2007 on the European Community's Development Policy and the Implementation of External Assistance in 2006' (COM(2007)0349).
- [7] OJ L 310, 9.11.2006, p. 1.
- [8] OJ L 32, 4.2.2006, p. 80.
- [9] OJ L 21, 25.1.2005, p. 9.
- [10] OJ C 287E, 24.11.2006,; p.312..
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
The European Union's commitment to development already figured in the EC Treaty, and since then has been followed more consistently and effectively with the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals in 2000. At the Barcelona Summit in 2002, Member States (including the soon-to-be members who joined in 2004) committed themselves to raise their GNI contribution so that the total EU ODA would reach 0.7%. Furthermore, the European Consensus on Development signed in 2005, provided the EU with a common vision in terms of values, goals and resources for development.
This report analyses the current state of development cooperation in the new Member States, including relevant institutions, thematic programmes and targeted countries as well as their financial contributions. Due to their shared history and geographical location, the new Member States often focus on their immediate neighbours. Because the last round of enlargement considerably shaped the EU's borders, this report stresses the importance of the relationship between the new Member States and the EU's new eastern neighbours. For historical, cultural and geographical reasons, Cyprus and Malta were not included in this analysis.
European Development Cooperation builds on relationships with ACP countries which started in 1959 with the Yaoundé Agreements, later known as the Yaoundé Convention which lasted until 1975. It was followed by the Lomé Convention and then by the Cotonou Agreement, signed in 2000. The European Union provides financial assistance to African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP) through the newly established Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and the European Development Fund. The DCI amounts to almost EUR 17 billion for the 2007-13 period. These funds come in addition to EUR 22.7 (10th EDF) billion agreed specifically for ACP countries over the 2008-13 period, bringing the total - not including Member States' national contributions - to almost EUR 40 billion in new Community funding. Together with the new Member States, the EU can strengthen its role as the number one donor of development aid.
Historically, some of the new Member States already had development programmes with African countries which influenced their new development cooperation strategies, such as for example the Czech Republic with Angola and Zambia, Hungary with Ethiopia, or Slovakia with Kenya. For others, however, political transition made it more difficult to rely on old bonds and they have had to build national development strategies from the scratch, like Bulgaria and Romania.
The European Consensus on Development requires the increase of the financial contributions to DC, in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The European Consensus on Development provides an impetus, but does not oblige new Member States to target their development cooperation towards Africa, although old Member States should help the new Member States to collaborate with African countries.
One can clearly see that the new Member States are engaged in building the necessary legal framework and channels in order to institutionalise development co-operation. The development cooperation of the new Member States is largely directed at their immediate neighbours where they benefit from their historical experiences and 'transition expertise'.
The main targets are neighbours who share their historical experience - examples are Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Moldova, Georgia. Of the six newly independent states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine) the most targeted countries by the new Member States are Moldova and Ukraine. However, development aid implementation is more difficult concerning least developed countries.
The main EU's instrument to improve its relationship with its Eastern neighbours is the Neighbourhood Policy and the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENPI). These relationships are based on Country Action Plans, developed and negotiated with each individual country. However six countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) do not participate in the Neighbourhood policy but have Partnership and Cooperation Agreements. Both the EU and the five countries of Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirgizia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan) wish to further develop their relations and recognise that there are challenges to be met (borders, water management, organised crime, education, rule of law, human rights). The Russian Federation does not take the opportunity of the European Neighbourhood policy because it wants to preserve an "equal footing" in its relationship with the EU as opposed to the "junior partnership" that Russia sees in the ENP.
Furthermore, the ENP Action Plans with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine were negotiated without the involvement of the new Member States as they were concluded before they entered the Union in 2004/07 and therefore do not take into account important new Member States' insight.
The following recommendations are concerned with several points:
-The need to improve development cooperation policies in the new Member States,
-The acknowledgement that the new Member States are important links to the EU's new neighbours.
The main difficulties of implementing efficient development policies in the new Member States result from the difficult transition from aid receiver to aid donor. There is a lack of centralised agencies for strategy planning, lack of public awareness and the need to strengthen developmental NGOs with their new tasks. NGDOs of the new Member States already expressed concern over their vulnerable financial situation in a CONCORD report published in 2007. The new Member States' are struggling to meet their commitments to achieve 0.10-0.17% ODA/GNI by 2010 due to a number of reasons such as low levels of current public support for development cooperation and post-Soviet-related issues. Therefore, it is crucial to reinforce civil society and to engage in greater public consultation and development awareness campaign in order to gain feedback on the role and responsibility in their countries in Europe and in the world. The OECD countries that spend more on development education/awareness raising have in general higher ODA/GNI ratios and show slightly better public awareness on development issues. This OECD Development Centre research proves that education, awareness-raising campaigns, pubic debate and media focus have an effect on increasing awareness. However, disappointing levels of European public awareness of poverty and development issues indicate that over 80% of EU citizens have never heard of the Millennium Development Goals. Transparency of aid effectiveness and government spending on tackling poverty should be guaranteed to the general public as a part of a democratic right. More vigorous, efficient and coherent development co-operation policies can be expected through better education and information in developing countries.
Recommendations: There is a pressing need to coordinate old and new donor activities, while the potential advantages of the new Member States should be assessed and used in particular sectors/countries. The media and development NGOs should be encouraged to raise awareness among the population at large because only with wider support will it be possible to allocate financial and human resources to European development cooperation.
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
|
Date adopted |
29.1.2008 |
||
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
33 0 0 |
|
|
Members present for the final vote |
Thijs Berman, Josep Borrell Fontelles, Marie-Arlette Carlotti, Corina Creţu, Marek Aleksander Czarnecki, Nirj Deva, Koenraad Dillen, Fernando Fernández Martín, Alain Hutchinson, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Madeleine Jouye de Grandmaison, Filip Kaczmarek, Glenys Kinnock, Maria Martens, Gay Mitchell, Luisa Morgantini, Horst Posdorf, José Ribeiro e Castro, Toomas Savi, Frithjof Schmidt, Jürgen Schröder, Feleknas Uca, Johan Van Hecke, Jan Zahradil |
||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Gabriela Creţu, Sorin Frunzăverde, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Manolis Mavrommatis, Atanas Paparizov, Anne Van Lancker, Ralf Walter, Renate Weber |
||
|
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote
|
Catherine Neris |
||