Crucial reform. Reform of European development aid policy is significant proof of the vitality of European construction, which I have been attempting to underline in response to the excessive accusations and pessimism levelled against it. I did this, for example, yesterday when I wrote about reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). The general atmosphere encourages euroscepticism with a public that is weary (and is encouraged to be so) but the EU is striving to shift and look to the future. In this context, the European Commission was right to take the initiative in a very sensitive zone where changes are necessary, like relations with Africa and other regions experiencing difficulty.
A review of aid policy is crucial because the global situation has radically changed. Today, China controls an overwhelming share of international monetary reserves. Brazil, India and other developing countries are able to tackle their economic and social development themselves. It is widely acknowledged that indebtedness, however, compels the EU and its member states to apply tough austerity measures. Nonetheless, neither the former nor the latter intend to reduce the level of aid they provide. The objective of the proposed reform is twofold: to provide aid exclusively to countries that really need it and to get rid of the wastage and irregularities committed.
The presentation of the project by Commissioner Andris Piebalgs, as well as the content of the document, were summarised in EUROPE 10473. I strongly advise readers to consult it and would also like to add a few comments.
Additional sources, conditions and controls. The EU is by far, as we know, the main provider of international aid. Every year, around €54 billion is provided, of which €12 billion is managed by the Commission and the rest by member states. The Commission will be stepping up its efforts again, thanks to additional resources which, according to Mr Piebalgs, could also contain a percentage from the future tax on financial transactions…
The Commission is planning on developing contractual partnerships that would facilitate checking the results of the funding. This involves controlling the management of aid and its results, and could lead to a number of differences and conflicts with the authorities of beneficiary countries which, particularly in Africa, are eager to maintain their autonomy and independence. This is understandable. Nonetheless, the EU must also be allowed to subordinate its funding to the possibility of checking not only the effective realisation of projects and the way they operate (which is already problematic), but also the respect of conditions that could be defined as political. These include the fight against corruption and fraud, respect for human rights (terminology that now replaces the rights of man, in an effort to ensure that women's rights are also included). A number of discoveries have been made recently regarding financial payments made to political forces in Europe that have come from African leaders. This indicates to what extent certain abuses have been committed. It was for good reason that Mr Piebalgs explained that direct support to the budget of a dictatorial state would be avoided and other channels for assisting the respective population would be chosen.
Astonishing reactions. What I find astonishing is the rather lukewarm welcome given to the Piebalgs plan by non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which are involved in the development field. Oxfam has claimed to be “shocked” by the exclusion of countries with “intermediate revenues” from future European aid and has explained that “72% of the world's poorest people” live in these countries. There is a simple answer to this: China, India, Brazil and other countries must get to grips themselves with this 72% of people that are still poor, because these countries have both the duty and the possibility of doing so. CONCORD, for its part, has asserted that funding for “investments in the energy and private sector are only in the interest of the EU, and not in the interest of the developing world”.
Sometimes I wonder whether these bodies always defend the interests of the people in poor countries, or indeed their own importance and advantages in the management of aid funded by the EU. Obviously, I am aware of the merits of Oxfam and that several aspects of its activity do effectively benefit poor countries; but their support for the idea that the EU should continue to fund global economic giants, to the detriment of really poor countries and people, leaves me puzzled.
Useful but vigilant. Certain aspects of the reviewed policy proposed by Mr Piebalgs may have only been partly revised but its orientation is a positive one. It will help the poorest people in the world and at the same time it will remain vigilant with regard to their leaders when they try to personally enrich themselves.
The debate in the Council is expected to begin in spring 2012, so the new regime will be able to operate within the new 2014/2020 financial perspectives. (FR/transl.fl)