In May, the EU and UN held the third conference on the least developed countries here in Strasbourg. It was a good conference in the sense that the right words were said, but there is also cause for some despair when we look at the realities. These are, namely, that, since 1971, when the UN recognised the term ‘least developed’, the number of the least developed countries has grown from 25 to 49 today. Only one country, Botswana, has managed to struggle out of the ranks of the least developed countries. The gap between the world’s rich and poor has grown. In 1960, 20% of the world population in the richest countries had an income that was 30 times higher than that of the 20% poorest. In 1997, it was 74 times as high, and the figure is undoubtedly even higher today. There are many reasons why the least developed countries are in such a poor situation: rising population growth, illiteracy, untenable debt, environmental destruction, natural catastrophes and diseases such as HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis. In addition, unstable political conditions and a growing number of violent conflicts make it difficult to create long-term development plans. However, neither is it any use denying that, despite many resolutions to increase development aid by 0.7%, the reality is that development aid is 0.23% of gross domestic product. It is slightly better in the case of the EU, where it is 0.34%. The removal of customs barriers in respect of the developing countries, which will help these countries, is progressing slowly. This was most recently illustrated in connection with Commissioner Lamy’s proposal, which was based on the Member States’ deferring the organisation of the market in sugar, especially with the support of the European sugar producers. In connection with the transfer of technology, private enterprise was intransigent in the fight against Aids, private enterprises only entering into a compromise with South Africa following fierce pressure, and now we are seeing exactly the same thing with regard to malaria – namely that enterprises do not have enough incentive to produce a vaccine against malaria, and therefore no vaccine will be produced unless we intervene and do something extraordinary. In addition to this, there is ICT. This is a development that is creating great economic growth in the industrialised countries, but which also risks further marginalisation of the developing countries due to lack of access both to the knowledge created by virtue of this development and to the technology as such. The opportunities that this technology can provide, as well as the risk of further marginalisation, form the background to this initiative report. The main viewpoint – the sustaining argument of the report – is that ICT provides an opportunity for the developing countries to make a quantum leap. In the report, I mention a number of sectors in which ICT can be used advantageously and in which other organisations such as the UNDP and the World Bank and some of the Member States have already had good experience. I believe that Parliament here is in line with the Council which, back in 1997 asked the Commission to draw up a report on experience with ICT in development work and, in November 2000, called upon the Commission to submit a communication on ‘the digital divide’. The report on experience arrived here this spring, and the communication will hopefully arrive before the meeting of the Development Council in November 2001. The Commission believes that the ICT work must take place through mainstreaming, that is, through ICT being used in the individual projects. This is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. If this development is not just to help those who are already strong, it is essential that mainstreaming be supplemented with central work so that there is a place from which initiatives can emanate, from which good advice can be obtained and where experience can be gathered, so that one does not have to start from scratch all the time and, above all, so that the right social balance in the development can be secured. Consequently, in an earlier report – namely the Gemelli report – in March of this year, the European Parliament also asked the Commission to give this area greater priority, possibly as part of the transport priority. The Commission has stood by its previous approach, but I cannot emphasise enough that this is not sufficient. This report therefore contains a proposal for an e-development unit. Without such a unit, it will be impossible to ensure that there is knowledge to ensure that ICT is incorporated in the right way into the work of the Commission. However, it is of course not only ICT that must be used in the context of the aid we provide. There is also a need for private enterprises. The shining example from other areas is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, which started micro loans for women – in the first instance in the agricultural sector, but later expanding to encompass other areas as well. A similar commitment within ICT is imperative. There are some that are in progress and more should be given further impetus. It would be nice to see a global social commitment on the part of enterprises, and this can easily be combined with general earnings. Finally, Mr President: ICT is always emphasised as the technology that can liberate people. It would be nice to be able to see that that also applies to people in the developing countries. In view of our experiences with the oil and pharmaceuticals industries, it would be good if enterprises could become a shining example into the bargain.

Political group: ELDR