Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 6 April 2006 - Strasbourg

4. Work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2005 (debate)

  President. The next item is the report by Mr Cornillet on behalf of the Committee on Development on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2005 [2005/2104(INI)] (A6-0063/2006).

  Thierry Cornillet (ALDE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, the report on the work of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2005 is actually included on the agenda. I will not go back over the detail of the report and will merely refer to two sessions, that in Bamako in April 2005 and that in Edinburgh in November 2005, without forgetting the next session, which will be held in Vienna in June 2006. I should like to point out in this Chamber just how worthwhile it is, as was the case this year, for sessions organised in Europe to be held in the country holding the Presidency. It does, in fact, seem extremely logical to maintain and to perpetuate this system, which was adopted two years ago.

I should also like to highlight the very solid contribution of our colleagues from the ACP countries, and we must congratulate them on that. We simultaneously conducted six joint missions, and allow me for the first - but not the last - time to emphasise the adjective ‘joint’. It is essential, in fact, that both the Permanent Assembly and the missions share a joint vision of matters. To do the opposite would make no sense at all. I should also like to point out that an increasing number of horizontal votes between the ACP countries and the EU representation have been held. In my opinion, the practice of separating houses must be drawn on as little as possible without it being necessarily removed from our Rules of Procedure. That being said, it is true that the objective, in the long term, would be to hold an increasing number of votes that make it possible to secure an ACP-EU majority.

Furthermore, it appears that our colleagues from the ACP countries are less involved in what we might call an ‘intellectual’ capacity. By that I mean that we are in agreement with them on the fact that what was an expense for us – namely, in actual fact, the EU expenditure that consists of the ACP budget – is revenue for them. The need for parliamentary control at these two levels is, moreover, becoming increasingly clear to them. To this end, we, for our part, have requested the budgetisation of the EDF in order to guarantee parliamentary control regarding the use of this Community expenditure but, at the same time, the parliaments of the ACP countries also need to submit to parliamentary control what they consider to be revenue. That is a joint battle that we will have to fight if the vital need for parliamentary control is to be recognised.

As for the future of the ACP, I welcome the amendment made to the Cotonou Agreement. The budget for the tenth EDF now amounts to EUR 22.682 billion. We have already complained in this Chamber about this sum, which does not live up to our expectations of EUR 24 billion. The Austrian Presidency has already responded to us. I have no doubt that my fellow Members will shortly take the floor on this subject in order to request a realignment. It is not a matter of endlessly repeating the same questions, but we are awaiting more forceful responses than the ones we have been given.

The EDF surplus also poses a problem. To date, it stands at almost EUR 11 billion, which naturally raises questions about the procedure and the ambition of the projects dealt with, because it is unforgivable that EUR 11 billion should not have been spent in countries that have such glaringly obvious needs.

What does the future hold for the EDF? If we fulfil our political commitments in 2010 and if we succeed in devoting 0.56% of our GDP to development aid, then the European Union will grant an additional EUR 50 billion per year to this budget, even though it had made the political commitment to devote only half of that amount, or EUR 25 billion, to Africa. It is quite clear that if this policy is complied with, the additional aid that is available will actually correspond to one annual EDF budget. Nevertheless, if the way in which we spend that budget were to be examined, it would only raise questions.

Furthermore, I wonder about the proportion of the aid to developing countries that will be managed by the European Union and that will be in the region of 20%. In that case, even if my choice of term is a little strong, the EDF will be reduced to the status of a minor instrument of aid. The problem of its budgetisation, which is absolutely crucial and needs to be done as soon as possible, thus becomes even more acute, as does that of its ‘fungibility’, meaning the possibility of granting very ambitious regional projects, such as rail infrastructure, a place in the European Union’s general system for action. That is what would make it possible to ensure coordination between the member countries and the European Union. The EDF can become that coordination lever, and the Joint Parliamentary Assembly can become an element of specific control, in the knowledge that all of the least developed countries in the world are members of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

Finally, there is above all the problem of understanding European Union policy. What I was describing just now as Community expenditure earmarked for development aid is provided by our taxpayers. As such, action must be clear because it is no good the populists grabbing hold of the figures that I have announced to you and crying out: ‘What on earth are you doing with all of that money?’ We therefore need this matter to be viewed and understood from a political perspective.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Mr President, the rapporteur has produced an excellent report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly. He has summarised very well all the recent developments of the Assembly. It is indeed becoming an increasingly strong parliamentary pillar of ACP-EU cooperation. The establishment of the standing committees and the joint drafting of reports by the ACP and the EU members of the Assembly have led to more frequent and more intense contacts between parliamentarians.

The Assembly has become a mature forum, where issues of concern to ACP and EU parliamentarians are addressed in an open debate where broad consensus on many development issues is emerging and where votes by separate houses have become a rare exception. This framework has allowed the Assembly to discuss and reach agreement on a broad variety of issues ranging from governance over finance to trade questions.

The resolution calls on the Assembly to organise meetings between EU and ACP Members of Parliament at regional or sub-regional level to strengthen regional integration and foster cooperation between national parliaments. The Commission is ready to make its contribution to the success of such arrangements.

In conclusion, I would like to stress that the Commission shares your view on the Assembly’s role as a model for cooperation. My colleague Mr Michel has participated in all the Assemblies held since he took office. Commissioner Michel also looks forward to attending the next Assembly which will be held in Vienna in June this year.

  Michael Gahler, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, let me start by extending warm thanks to Mr Cornillet for his comprehensive report on our activities over the past year, in many of which I have of course participated as first European Vice-President of the Assembly. I would also, at the outset, like to thank equally warmly our two co-presidents – the European co-president Mrs Kinnock, who is with us today, and, in her absence Sharon Hay-Webster, for their great dedication over the past year, which has been exemplary, and we look forward to their continuing with their work. The primary object of the Parliamentary Assembly is to reinforce the parliamentary dimension of the Cotonou Agreement. The many things that we do together are intended to help our counterparts gain influence in their own countries and gain the same self-confidence that we have gained over the years in our dealings with our governments and the executive.

Our shared experiences, and our journeys together to various places, have led us to shared conclusions, for example as regards the reform of the market organisation for sugar. It is good that the Commissioner for Agriculture is present with us today, since she knows the figures inside out and knows what we in Europe are doing to lessen the impact of reform of the market organisation for sugar and how little, in comparison with that, is available for the countries concerned. It is apparent from that that our reform directly impacts on these countries, two of which – Guyana and Jamaica – I have myself visited. In Guyana, we can – without intending to – contribute to the destabilisation of a whole country if we do not lessen the impact of our reform by making adequate compensation available to that country.

There is another important aspect that I would like to highlight. We call on the Commission to set aside an appropriate proportion of European development funding for the political education of parliamentarians and other persons in positions of leadership, enabling the development in these countries of the sort of political culture that will strengthen responsible governance in the long term.

In conclusion, I would like to mention the official contact that we established with the Pan-African Parliament at the end of last year, when I was able, on behalf of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, to confer with Sharon Hay-Webster, and I have since become the chairman of this ad hoc delegation. It is important that we should foster an awareness in Africa that the continent shares a common destiny and of the important role there that Parliament can play in this respect.

  Marie-Arlette Carlotti, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Mr President, the report by my fellow Member, Mr Cornillet, illustrates the quality of the work done by the Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2005.

The JPA is a permanent forum for political dialogue that tends to become an instrument of prevention, of conflict resolution and of support for the democratic process. The role of the JPA is therefore very precious in the context of the Cotonou Agreements. It is a unique tool for dialogue between the North and the South. In the future, it must work more effectively, particularly in terms of dealing with major crisis situations, such as the one in Darfur, provided that it is given the resources to do so. This aspect is above all the responsibility of the European Union, which must attach political priority to this partnership with the ACP countries, by respecting its commitments in the negotiations under way on the sum of the tenth EDF and by finally refraining from taking back with the one hand what it gives with the other, as illustrated by the sugar reform.

By finally giving the JPA the political respect that it deserves, let us thus definitively enforce what is laid down in the Cotonou Agreement, that is to say that the Assembly shall meet in Europe in the country of the EU Presidency. Let us not welcome our ACP partners in a half-hearted fashion, as that would be a downright poor political signal for us to give. However, it is also the responsibility of the JPA itself. It must make progress with its reform and its working methods, and the next development could result in regional conferences being held. This objective could be set by the beginning of 2007.

Finally, we, as members of the JPA, also have a political responsibility, by abstaining, for example, from voting in separate houses, which is not only the negation of the JPA’s joint character, but also the means used all too often these days for the purposes of thwarting the outcome of a vote. I find all of that in the Cornillet report and I therefore believe that, as far as we are concerned, it constitutes a road map for 2006.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, how to help the countries of Africa and other parts of the developing world is a key factor in ensuring a more prosperous and therefore a more stable world.

What Africa needs in particular is respect for the rule of law, respect for contract law and the protection of private property. Under those circumstances there will be economic development and prosperity. This is very hard to achieve when many of the governments are socialist or quasi-socialist or simply kleptocracies. The story of international aid to these countries is sadly one of waste, embezzlement and corruption.

If the EU really wants to help these countries, it should not help consolidate corrupt systems through more aid. What it should do is embrace free trade and lower the trade barriers and tariffs – in fact remove trade barriers and tariffs that are holding back the economic development of these countries.

  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cotonou Agreement of 2000 had the good intention of giving the ACP countries help from the EU in getting out of the gutter. Even though, today, its continuation is probably a foregone conclusion, there are still a number of things wrong with it, and I shall sum some of them up.

There are still, among the ACP countries, six dictatorships, namely Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Sudan, Swaziland, Cuba and Eritrea. It is a matter of fact that these countries’ dictators constitute an obstacle to their economic development. The Joint Parliamentary Assembly, and its Political Affairs Committee in particular, must make it a priority to bring real democracy to these countries. At the same time, the ACP countries also include a number of countries in which religious practices still prevail over the rule of law. The humanitarian tragedy in Darfur is a direct consequence of this, among other things. In some of them, women’s rights count for nothing and the mutilation of women – despite what has already been done to counteract it – is still a daily occurrence.

It was the Cotonou Agreement that first acknowledged that corruption was an obstacle to development. It is still going on; it has not yet been stamped out, and constitutes a serious obstacle to the alleviation of the needs of the least well-off in these countries. Let me close by quoting the Indian Nobel economics prizewinner Amartya Sen: ‘never yet has famine occurred in a democratic country’. It follows, then, that, in addition to the principle of ‘aid for trade’, we also have to consider the idea of ‘aid for democracy’.

  Maria Martens (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, I think that it is with satisfaction that we can look back on the past year and on the Bamako and Edinburgh agreements reached by the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly. Good reports have been adopted, and the capacity for tackling burdensome tasks has been further enhanced along with the quality of political dialogue. That is important if we want to help build up political stability, which is what we accomplish by strengthening the parliaments.

At the end of the day, though, what matters in development cooperation in the ACP countries is the concept of ownership, and it is that that we will take as the starting point for our work. It is still the countries themselves that bear primary responsibility for their own development. Through dialogue in the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, we hope to further promote good governance, democracy and the protection of human rights, and I might add that I am also happy with the appointment this week – to which reference has already been made – of this House’s ad hoc delegation to the Pan-African Parliament, which can be an additional instrument.

Today, I want to ask that particular attention be given to two projects that have been running over the past year, and will continue next year, namely the economic partnership agreements and the reform of the sugar market, both of which will have a great deal of impact on both Europe and the ACP countries. We must see to it that both continue to help put the ACP countries in a stronger economic position, and in that respect good consultation with them will be of crucial importance and must involve their parliaments too.

This House treats cooperation between the ACP countries and the EU as being of particular importance, since it involves a Joint Parliamentary Assembly consisting of 77 members of this House and 77 members of the ACP countries’ parliaments. We debate together and adopt resolutions together in what is a unique and valuable arrangement. What is needed for peace and political and economic stability in these countries is not just financial investment on our part, but also investment in contacts devoted to deliberation and dialogue, in order to get to know one another better and understand one another better. In that we cannot invest enough.

I look forward to the 11th meeting in Vienna in June this year, and I hope that it will be a successful one. I thank the rapporteur for his outstanding report and for the pleasure of working with him.

  Glenys Kinnock (PSE). – Mr President, I thank Mr Cornillet for his excellent and wide-ranging report, which covered all the points raised in the debate this morning.

Anyone looking at our Joint Parliamentary Assembly over a number of years, as I certainly have for around 12 years, has seen a very heartening increase in confidence, maturity and, indeed, in engaging on issues related to trade and to political dialogue, to which we attach great importance.

Someone said that everything in Africa was terrible and things were not improving. I do not think that we can make that case. There are limitations, but we are there, working behind the Cotonou Partnership Agreement with parliamentarians in a unique way. There is no other North-South parliamentary assembly such as ours that has this opportunity to press on governance, democracy and human rights, and that is what we do.

On the EDF, briefly, we are concerned and we had a debate at the part-session in Brussels a few weeks ago. Many of us are concerned about the situation of the overseas countries and territories in relation to the EDF. We are concerned that allowance has not been made for the entry of East Timor into the ACP-EU relationship, and we have a number of other concerns. We are always puzzled about the 3% or 4% administration costs. I do not know why the Commission needs to put money in to pay itself for the job it is doing. I find that rather odd.

Let me turn briefly to sugar, with which the Commissioner has been directly involved. At the weekend I am going to Africa – Swaziland – and Mauritius to look again at the issues related to sugar there. The Commissioner must be aware that the figures we now have on the budget line, going from EUR 130 million up to EUR 170 million by 2013, are far short of what the Commissioner and others had promised, which was EUR 190 million. My own government talked about EUR 230 million. They are going to get EUR 1.1 billion at the end of 2013 and it is back-loaded. How can that be sensible? We urge the Commissioner to look at this and to try to make this more workable. Stop this back-loading and increase the amounts on the budget line for these countries.

The issue is not just about employment in sugar, as the Commissioner must know – because we made enough fuss about it in Europe – but also about the other developments that depend on and grow around that source of employment. Thousands and thousands of livelihoods are at stake in those 18 Sugar Protocol countries. You can rely on us in the Joint Parliamentary Assembly to keep raising this issue.

We have work in progress. Our committees are working well and I think that we can fairly say that the Joint Parliamentary Assembly can only grow in strength in future years. We will continue to fight on EDF, trade and other concerns and priorities that we share with our fellow Joint Parliamentary Assembly parliamentarians.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, there are many things in the report by the ACP delegation which in my capacity as Member I should draw positive attention to. I am not therefore talking now about the situation concerning the ACP countries so much as the work of the delegation.

Firstly I am grateful to the Bureau of the European Parliament for its decision to authorise the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly to be held in Edinburgh. The meeting was a success, and Great Britain, the country holding the presidency at the time, and the City of Edinburgh deserve praise for organising the event so well. I hope that it will be possible to organise the JPA in the country holding the presidency in future as well, because the place where the meetings are held brings true added value, as does the fact that the meetings are held by rotation in the EU-ACP countries.

It was also excellent that representatives of the ACP and the EU were able to participate in the informal council of ministers for development cooperation organised by the UK Presidency in October. Hopefully the practice will also continue when my country, Finland, takes over the presidency in July.

The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly has an important role in implementing the political dialogue provided for by Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement. The objective is to strengthen democracy, good governance and the human rights situation. It is just a slight nuisance that our meetings always partly coincide with Committee Week. For me it has meant that I have never been able to be continuously present at a meeting. I do not know whether other Members share the same opinion, but I would think that it would be easier to get away during the week when Parliament’s groups hold their meetings. It would perhaps be worth testing this option.

I am also happy that standing committees have been set up. They have made for better upstream cooperation between the European Parliament and the ACP members. I realised how viable the system was when I myself produced a report.

  Ana Gomes (PSE). – (PT) I should first like to commend Mr Cornillet for his report, and the joint chairman of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly for her hard work and commitment in the work of the Assembly.

I should also like to draw attention to the conclusions of the Women’s Forum that took place at the fringe of the Assembly during the final session in Edinburgh in November. The discussion touched upon the issue of the trafficking of women and girls from developing countries and the poorest parts of Europe to the wealthiest areas of Western Europe. Some 600 000 to 800 000 women are trafficked every year across international borders, which corresponds to more than the entire population of some ACP countries, for example Cape Verde, Djibouti and the Comoros Islands.

The Women’s Forum established a bridge between countries of origin and destination. The debate was lively, with strong participation from the contingent from the ACP countries. In the final conclusions, the participants called on the Joint Parliamentary Assembly to draw up a report to identify the measures needed to combat this scourge in all ACP countries, including European, African and Caribbean countries.

It should be noted that the Forum was arranged for the fringe of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly and that resources are not made available for it. I therefore call on Parliament’s services and the Conference of Presidents to consider harnessing funding for such a positive, results-focused organisation. On a more general level, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly last year discussed the situation in Darfur and West Africa, but did not address the breakdown in the rule of law and the electoral process, and the serious violations of human rights in countries of key, symbolic significance such as Ethiopia, where the African Union has its headquarters.

There have, however, been important developments in the fight against impunity in Africa; for example, the dictator Charles Taylor has been arrested and brought to justice. Other dictators such as Hissène Habré, and former Ethiopian dictator Mengistu, currently being harboured by ACP countries like Zimbabwe and Senegal, must also be brought to justice. These are further cases in which the Assembly can play a key role in ending impunity in Africa.

On this issue, I must say that it would be most useful if the debates were more genuine. Sometimes, there are ACP countries acting more as the ambassadors of their governments and less as critics of the situation in their countries. I feel that as MEPs we have a duty to find ways of supporting our counterparts from ACP countries who are determined to tell the truth and to encourage them to take action to bring about change and better governance in their countries.

  John Bowis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I think we see the ACP relationship as maturing well, which may sound like the description of a long-term mistress, but it is true that we know each other, we understand each other, sometimes we excite each other, sometimes we see each other’s blemishes, but we grow to value each other’s qualities.

My message to the ACP is that we still wish on principle that ACP delegates should only be from among members of parliament and not ambassadors, and preferably from government and opposition parties, which would better reflect the balance of the European Parliament’s delegation. I am not sure whether one day we will have the EP meeting the AP – the African Parliament, including, of course, the Caribbean and Pacific – but certainly we must play our part in sustaining and developing that African Parliament concept.

My message to the European Parliament is that REACH has shown us how intimately the work of each of us affects that of the other. We had valuable discussions in Bamako and in Edinburgh and this Parliament, I am sure, will take the ACP views into account. Often, however, we legislate for all the right reasons in the European Parliament yet we have not heard the worries of the ACP, because we have not listened. That is why I say to the Commissioner that the ACP is not just for our good friend Mr Michel: it is for all the Commissioners in the College.

I am very pleased that this House overruled the Presidency of Parliament on the question of where the last JPA should be sited in the European Union. It was right for us to site it in the country holding the Presidency, just as we rotate our meetings in the JPA in the ACP countries. That gives ACP members an opportunity to see different aspects of different policies in Europe, for example the malaria vaccine research in Edinburgh. In the same way, we learned much from seeing the desertification of the Niger; or the implementation of the vaccine fund on the ground in Mali, where we could see the people who are most affected actually benefiting from the work being done. The flu pandemic threat and the avian flu pandemic reality show just how important it is that we continue to work closely together – Europe and the countries of the ACP – for our mutual benefit.

(Applause)

  Karin Scheele (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I too would like to add my voice to the congratulations to the rapporteur, Mr Cornillet, who, in his report, has given a really very good overview of the good work done by the Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

Many speakers have mentioned the women’s forum that takes place at every meeting of the Joint Assembly, and I would like to do likewise, for the in-depth discussion of the political and economic problems specific to women in the ACP countries is very helpful, not only to the women’s forum itself, but also to the Assembly’s ensuing plenary debates. I need do no more than remind the House of the exciting debate on genital mutilation that took place in Bamako in Mali – itself a country in which this practice is not yet proscribed by law – when the discussion went on for hours and we even managed to get it carried on the radio.

I would now like to share with you some thoughts on the work done by the committees, which has had the effect of markedly improving the work of the ACP-EU Assembly, in that fewer amendments are tabled in the plenary, and the higher degree of trust established between MEPs and the representatives of the ACP countries means that compromises are achieved more often. I would, though, like to reiterate something that has already been said, namely that it is important to give thought to the scheduling of the European meetings of the committees, which are held in Brussels. It is sometimes a real shame that we should have to take part in votes in our own specialist committees, which can go on for hours, and are thereby prevented from taking part in the exciting and important debates in the ACP-EU committees, which is sometimes – wrongly – taken as an indication of a lack of interest.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I agree with the speakers that the Joint Parliamentary Assembly has become an accepted, respected forum for dialogue. The resolutions adopted by this Assembly sometimes even launch debates that go beyond that forum. Mr Bowis mentioned the resolution on REACH, adopted here in November last year, which has led to a much more focused discussion about the impact of REACH on the developing countries.

The next Joint Parliamentary Assembly also promises to be interesting. It will deal with such important issues as the role of regional integration in the promotion of peace and security, the problematic issue of energy in the ACP countries and the social and environmental aspects of fisheries in developing countries. I know from my colleague, Mr Michel, that he is very much looking forward to attending those meetings.

On the sugar issue, I am indeed familiar with the issue of funding for the Sugar Protocol countries. We have had this discussion before. I should just like to reiterate that EUR 40 million is available in 2006. What is more important is that we do not forget that the impact of the price drop agreed within the European Union will not have an effect on the ACP countries until 2008. They have another two years to try to adapt their production with the money available from the European Union. You know that considerable funds will be available from 2007 until 2013.

In the European Union we have shown that we also have a responsibility towards those countries that will be affected by internal legislation concerning the need – that I am quite sure everybody feels – to adapt our agricultural policy to a more global trade.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

Written Statement (Rule 142)

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). – The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly has done some great work in deepening our ties with ACP countries and affords them a crucial link to our deliberations, particularly as we come to finally address our trade policies, which all too often hinder rather than help development. Scotland has been at the forefront of calls for change in 2005, with the Make Poverty History march in Edinburgh, the G8 summit in Gleneagles in the summer, and of course we were delighted to host the ACP-EU meeting in Edinburgh. What we now need to see is our Member State governments putting our fine words into action, and making development policy not just a matter of doling out aid but of working with developing countries in fair trade, to all our betterment.