----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Joint Declaration by the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on the European Union Development Policy — The European Consensus’

(COM(2005) 311 final)

(2006/C 24/16)

On 29 July 2005, the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 September 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Zufiaur.

At its 420th plenary session, held on 28 and 29 September 2005 (meeting of 29 September), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 84 votes to five, with six abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   EU development policy: aims and goals

3.   Guidelines and channels for European development policy

4.   Criteria for mobilising European development policy

5.   Stakeholders in development policy

6.   Priorities: concentration and differentiation in EU development policy

7.   Funding

8.   Proposals

Brussels, 29 September 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  This ‘package’, published in April 2005 consists of three Communications: COM(2005) 132 on The European Union's contribution, COM(2005) 133 on Financing for development and aid effectiveness, and COM(2005) 134 on Policy coherence for development.

(2)  Note should be taken, however, of the Impact Assessment that accompanies the Commission proposal, the Annual Report on Community development policy and external aid and the Commission's thematic and geographical evaluations that systematically include the practical implementation of development policy.

(3)  ODI/ICEI/ECDPM Assessment of the EC development policy. DPS Study report. February 2005.

(4)  General Assembly Resolution A/RES/55/2, of 8 September 2000.

(5)  The MDGs are as follows: 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; 2. Achieve universal primary education; 3. Promote gender equality and empower women; 4. Reduce child mortality; 5. Improve maternal health; 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; 7. Ensure environmental sustainability; 8. Develop a global partnership for development.

(6)  Opinion on The Social Dimension of Globalisation – the EU's policy contribution on extending the benefits to all, OJ C 234 of 22.9.2005.

(7)  Opinion on How to integrate social aspects into the Economic Partnership Agreement OJ C 255 of 14.10.2005; Opinion on Social cohesion in Latin America and the Caribbean, OJ C 110 of 30.4.2004; Opinion on Human Rights in the Workplace, CESE 933/2001.

(8)  Conventions on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise (No 87); Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining (No 98); Forced Labour (No 29); Abolition of Forced Labour (No 105); Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) (No 111); Equal Remuneration (No 100); Minimum Age (No 138); Worst Forms of Child Labour (No 182).

(9)  Opinion on Social cohesion in Latin America and the Caribbean. OJ C 110 of 30.4.2004, p. 55.

(10)  A particularly relevant issue is the infringement of trade union rights in many parts of the world, such as Latin America, where trade union activists are persecuted, imprisoned and, in many cases, murdered.

(11)  See EESC Opinion on the Green paper on an EU approach to managing economic migrationOJ C 255 of 14.10.2005.

(12)  EESC opinion on Access to European Union citizenship (OJ C 208 of 3.9.2003).

(13)  Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Migration and Development: Some concrete orientations (COM (2005) 390 final.

(14)  Term denoting the inappropriate use of aid resources by the beneficiary.

(15)  The EESC is aware of the importance of the representativeness of civil society organisations, and the issue is being studied by a subcommittee. The Cotonou ACP-EC agreement contains various eligibility criteria for non-governmental organisations, in this case for access to EDF resources. Similarly, the EESC opinion on Organised civil society and European governance: the Committee's contribution to the drafting of the White Paper lists the representativeness criteria for European civil society organisations.

(16)  For example, the civil society forums organised by DG RELEX on relations between the EU and Andean Community, Central America, Mexico and Mercosur.

(17)  OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, OECD 2000.

(18)  EESC opinions on the Green Paper on Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility (OJ C 125 of 27.2.2002) and the Communication from the Commission on the Social Agenda (OJ C 294 of 25.11.2005).

(19)  Speeding up progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (COM (2005) 132 final).

(20)  See OJ C 157 of 28.6.2005 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the access to Community External Assistance.

(21)  The European Commission draw up a study on the issue of additional funding for development in April 2005: Commission Staff Working Paper, New Sources of Financing for Development: A Review of Options (SEC(2005) 467) and a Communication on Accelerating Progress Towards achieving the MDG. Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness COM(2005) 133 final. These set out various initiatives and Member States' positions on these. Although the positions are not definitive, some Member States have already adopted more proactive stances on these new sources of financing from global funds.

(22)  See OJ C 112 of 30.4.2004 on Social Cohesion in Latin America and the Caribbean.

(23)  In this regard, see the opinion currently being drawn up in the EESC on External action of the Union: the role of organised civil society (Rapporteur: Mr Koryfidis – OJ C 74 of 23.3.2005).

(24)  According to studies carried out by various international institutions, the impact of the reductions in export subsidies on the economies of developing countries is difficult to evaluate since this varies according to the specific situation of each country and the structure of its trade.

----