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)
Date: 2005-09-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU financing, EU policy, cooperation policy, development aid, poverty

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/79

This process of change will take considerable time and
4.10
will require full
involvement and commitment of the social
partners. Social dialogue at the sectoral level (at the national as
well as at the European level) is the most important instrument
to construct a bridge between the views of employers, self-
employed and workers and the goals of EU policy. This is parti-
legislation and regulation pertaining to
cularly true
manning of ships and hours of work and rest
for crew
members.

for

4.11
For the future of European IWT, extra attention is
urgently desirable for education and training. The social part-
ners should make their contribution to this.

4.12
Agreements between social partners at Community
level on the basis of Article 139 of the EU Treaty can lead to
IWT-specific regulations. In the EESC's opinion, this is appro-
priate when the social partners agree that the special needs of
the sector demand additional regulations to the minimum
provisions which the Council has laid down under Article 137
of the Treaty.

Brussels, 29 September 2005

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

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 Develop-
ment 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

1.1
The initiative of the Commission and the Council to
revise the Declaration on Development Policy adopted in 2000
and, in general, to reshape the future of this policy is, from all
points of view, extremely important. Developments on the
international stage, new standpoints and consensuses on devel-
opment policy in the international community and changes
within the Union itself suggest that this revision is needed.
Likewise, the growing problems of under-development, particu-
larly in Africa, and the increasing differences between countries
brought about by globalisation underscore the need for a revi-
sion of the Community's development policy.

the Millennium Summit and echoed at

reached at
the
Monterrey, Johannesburg, Cairo and other conferences, on such
issues as funding, the environment, gender mainstreaming and
HIV/AIDS; the process of harmonising the development poli-
cies of donors launched by the OECD's Development Assistance
Committee (DAC); and the consolidation of a number of new
such as
instruments
Poverty Reduction
Sector-wide
Approaches (SWAP) and budgetary support. More recently, the
High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, held in Paris in March
2005, made progress on this matter, with donors signing up to
a number of
results-based
management and shared responsibility.

for planning and implementing aid,

commitments on ownership,

Strategy

(PRSP),

Papers

1.2
Some of the changes that have taken place at interna-
tional level, and which have in one way or another affected
increased security-related concerns
development policies, are:
following 9/11; the results of the 2001 WTO meeting in Doha
and the subsequent process which forms part of the Develop-
ment Agenda; the new international consensus on development

1.3
These changes have also been affected by the scant
progress achieved, according to most indicators, towards the
targets set
five years ago for the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs). To ensure that these targets are not missed by
the 2015 deadline, the international community must review

C 24/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

its policies and come up with a genuine emergency plan. This
plan must be capable of generating additional resources for
public development aid and must cover economic aid, trade
policy, debt, intellectual property, taking account of the effects
of migration and strengthening civil society organisations.

presents an opportunity to consolidate the leading role the EU
plays in the developing world. The EESC considers it very
important that all the Community institutions agree on the
broad lines of development policy.

1.4
During the same period, important issues have arisen in
the Community which also affect development cooperation; the
reform of external aid started in 2000 with the consolidation
of EuropeAid and the process of deconcentration and decentra-
lisation in Commission delegations; the entry into force of the
Cotonou Agreement in 2003 (the revised version of the agree-
ment has just been signed, under which the ACP countries will
benefit from a guaranteed minimum amount,
irrespective of
the outcome of the negotiations on the financial perspectives
2007-2013) and the process underway to include the European
Development Fund (EDF) in the budget. On the wider stage, the
EU's enlargement to 25 Members, the implementation of the
European Security Strategy and the Common Foreign and
Security Policy (CFSP), and the discussion of the Constitutional
Treaty incorporating development policy into the EU external
relations ‘policy mix’, give a new dimension to development
aid, requiring a new approach. Lastly, the discussions on the
Financial Perspectives 2007-2013 could provide an opportunity
to translate the implications of all
the above issues into
concrete commitments.

The consultation process launched for this revision of
1.5
development policy is also to be welcomed as it boosts the
democratic participation of all the actors involved.

1.6
At the beginning of this reflection process in January
it was envisaged that a Commission Communication
2005,
would be drawn up in the first quarter of the year. This
Communication was finally published in July of this year and
the Commission asked the EESC for its views on the document.
This opinion is a response to this request. Given that the
United Nations conference reviewing the progress made on the
Millennium Goals will be held in September,
the EESC
considers that it would be appropriate if, once the conclusions
of this conference are known, the Commission reopened the
consultation process before finalising the Declaration, which is
to be presented at the November Council. Furthermore, the fact
that this process coincided with the drafting of other Com-
munity institution positions — for its part, the EESC contrib-
uted by drawing up its position on the Millennium Develop-
ment Goals (known as the MDG package (1)), on which the
Council has called for progress to be speeded up — could help
to ensure greater commitment on the part of the European
issues and
Union as a whole to addressing development

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

The Declaration on Development Policy, adopted in
1.7
2000, was drawn up jointly by the Commission and the
Council, reflecting the widespread support and consensus for
the document. This time around, the Commission also intends
to involve Parliament. The EESC is extremely interested in
playing a key role in this process because it considers that
development policy warrants maximum support from the Euro-
pean public and from the institutions representing civil society.

1.8
The EESC believes that it would have been useful if the
Commission paper — The Future of EU Development Policy —
which has recently focused consultation and debate on the
matter, devoted more effort to evaluating the effectiveness of
Community aid since its inception and provided a more
detailed analysis of the bottlenecks and problems that have had
an impact on its effectiveness over the years (2). The problems,
in our opinion, have been the slowness in implementing the
programmes, the high administrative and other costs relative to
the funds allocated to the projects, the coupling of aid, the
secondary role played by the beneficiary countries and the
unpredictability and volatility of aid flows. It would have been
good to see even a brief assessment by the Commission of the
2000 Declaration's impact and of the various problems faced
by Community cooperation, as well as the results that it has
achieved and the lessons learned over this period. There are
other recent studies (3), however, carried out with the European
Commission's support, which provide a very useful frame of
In the EESC's opinion, the limited
reference in this matter.
effectiveness
aid has demonstrated in
combating poverty calls for a degree of self-criticism and the
revision of future development policy, as well as continuing
with the efforts initiated by the Commission to improve the
quality and effectiveness of Community aid.

that development

2. EU development policy: aims and goals

2.1
Both the Communications on the MDG package and the
2002 Barcelona commitments on meeting the Monterrey objec-
tives address the two basic aspects of aid policy — the volume
of public funds provided and their effectiveness. There is
considerable international consensus on this issue, embodied in
the MDGs which have been endorsed by 189 countries (4).

(2) Note should be taken, however, of the Impact Assessment that
accompanies the Commission proposal, the Annual Report on Com-
munity 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.

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/81

Reducing and, in the long term, eradicating poverty must be
the guiding principle
for all development policies. This
consensus on the MDGs sometimes becomes overly rhetorical,
overlooking the fact that they comprise eight goals for social,
economic and environmental development with, at the top of
the list, reducing extreme poverty by 50 % by 2015 and that
the goals are given practical form in 18 quantifiable targets
with one or more indicators for each of them. The European
commitment to each of the MDGs must be in line with their
practical and operational dimension. The existence of practical
targets and indicators for the MDGs can also help to increase
the much-needed accountability and transparency of coopera-
tion in general and of European aid in particular (5).

For the first time in decades, developed countries and
2.2
poor countries now have a common development agenda for
managing globalisation, in an attempt to make it more inclu-
sive and more conducive to social cohesion. Development must
in any event be addressed in an integrated and all-embracing
way, so as to take account, in the fight against poverty, of the
influence of various policies,
from trade-related polices to
environmental policies, including migration and security poli-
cies. A gender focus must be incorporated in any initiative to
combat poverty.

3. Guidelines and channels for European development

policy

The underlying causes of poverty are many and varied
3.1
and differ according to context. Nor is poverty defined by a
given level of income. It is a situation of extreme vulnerability,
resulting from a lack of physical,
financial and human
resources. Combating poverty is not simply a question of
increasing the overall volume of aid. Conditions must therefore
be put in place for the increase and correct distribution of
wealth; developed countries must
trade and
economic policies; the local markets of the poor countries
must be expanded; democratic institutions must be promoted;
and civil society organisations must be strengthened. There
must also be an effective and fair relationship between the role
played by the State and that of the market. Experience in
recent decades has shown that unless States are able to provide
hard and soft infrastructure, it is impossible to promote devel-
opment.

revise their

Schemes to formalise property rights for the poorest
3.2
sectors (involving property of little apparent value, such as the

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

shanty towns in some Latin American countries), have shown
that these legal property rights can have positive effects on
development and in the EESC's view, should be taken into
account in European development policy.

3.3
The EESC also wishes to emphasise the importance of
education and training as a public asset. Education provides
benefits for society as a whole and not only for those who are
learning. Education, in all its forms, represents an increase in
human capital, which makes for improved growth, employ-
ment and incomes. Starting with achieving universal primary
education, as set out in the second MDG, we must move
towards other aspects of secondary and vocational education as
quickly as possible. Cooperation between Community institu-
tions and those in the Member States on educational matters
should be stepped up.

in poor countries. Growth cannot

Economic growth and more jobs are prerequisites for
3.4
take place,
development
however, without a minimum level of infrastructure,
income
distribution systems, access to education and health, high-
quality institutions and social consensus. Unless this social
capital is in place, economic development with social cohesion
is impossible. Poverty is, in turn, an insurmountable obstacle to
growth. Establishing a culture of production, measures to assist
the regularisation of the informal economy (promoting self-
employment and the
economy, developing SMEs,
adequate social protection systems) and developing a significant
local and regional market, are,
some
measures that could contribute to economic development in
poor countries.

the EESC believes,

social

Opening up international trade provides major opportu-
3.5
nities for helping the least-developed countries to emerge from
poverty and underdevelopment. Nevertheless, current world
trade regulations favour the most highly developed countries to
the detriment of the poorest. The EESC has stressed this in
various opinions, most recently in its opinion on the social
dimension of globalisation (6).
It would therefore be appro-
priate,
in the current round of WTO negotiations, the next
ministerial meeting for which will be held in December in
Hong Kong, and as part of the Union's bilateral relations, to
improve developing countries' access to the markets of devel-
oped countries, to reduce or eliminate all of those subsidies —
including subsidies for farming — which distort
to
remove most obstacles to exports from developing countries
and to reform the agreement on trade-related intellectual prop-
erty (TRIPs).
to avoid
making EU development aid dependent on the positions devel-
oping countries adopt in multilateral trade negotiations, which
is precisely how some international financial institutions act.

It would appear advisable, therefore,

trade,

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

contribution on extending the benefits
22.9.2005.

C 24/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

3.6
The poorest and least-developed countries are also
highly vulnerable to integration in external markets and do not
have the resources to cope with the various stages of economic
transformation. As a consequence, development policy should
be geared towards a gradual integration into global markets,
providing investment in infrastructure, education and health,
developing democratic institutions and the emergence, in these
countries, of their own, efficient internal markets, together with
regional markets.

The EESC has on a number of occasions stated its
3.7
support for incorporating a social dimension into EU trade,
and cooperation association agreements (7). This
political
minimum social dimension should include promoting decent
work, developing public and private social protection systems
and fully respecting employment rights (the eight fundamental
ILO conventions (8) and Conventions Nos. 168 on Employment
Promotion, 183 on Maternity Protection and 155 on Occupa-
tional Safety and Health).

3.8
Given the importance of decent work (i.e. work in
decent conditions, both in terms of contractual obligations and
the conditions in which work is carried out) for development,
the EESC considers that, in order to ensure that these human
rights are observed in the workplace, a social chapter should be
incorporated into WTO rules.

3.9
The MDGs for their part do not take sufficient account
of this fundamental dimension in a context in which the effects
of globalisation on social conditions in general and on working
conditions in particular are clear to see. The EESC proposes
that the mid-term review of the MDGs currently underway
incorporate an analysis of the economic, social and employ-
ment rights situation and that, in future, decent work is made
the 9th Millennium Development Goal.

3.10
Development and human security should be comple-
mentary concepts and should strengthen EU development
policy. It is true that security and ensuring a conflict-free envir-
onment are prerequisites for a development strategy based on
eradicating poverty. On the other hand, however, economic
and social development constitute an essential guarantee for
security. The EESC believes that respect for human rights must
be a key priority for EU development policy, paying particular
attention to the importance of women's rights in combating
poverty. It will make a substantial contribution to reducing
poverty and to making the world a safer place.

(7) Opinion on How to integrate social aspects into the Economic Part-
nership 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).

The EESC thus reiterates (9) the need for EU develop-
3.11
ment policy to incorporate measures geared towards protecting
defenders of human rights,
including human rights in the
workplace (10), throughout the world.

3.12
The extreme vulnerability of many communities and
the existence of new and long-standing threats have heightened
the risk of both natural and man-made disasters. Development
policy must bear this in mind and adopt a more preventive
approach.
the planning of
development policy measures should incorporate a rigorous
analysis of the factors triggering conflict and target many of
these measures at supporting civil society organisations in their
efforts to consolidate peace and resolve and prevent new
conflicts and threats.

In areas susceptible to violence,

that, because

The EESC considers

3.13
environmental
protection is one of the three pillars of sustainable develop-
ment, it must be given the same priority as the economic and
social dimensions. The EESC therefore stresses the need to add
the environmental dimension as an indicator of effectiveness in
the implementation of development strategies. Furthermore,
carrying out environmental impact studies should be made a
prerequisite for projects and actions of a certain scale.

3.14
The EESC also believes that national strategies in the
beneficiary countries alone are not enough to overcome global
environmental challenges. Developed countries must shoulder
their responsibilities and contribute the lion's share of costs
inherent in solving global environmental problems. The EU
should make
to
financial
programmes designed to solve problems of this nature.

additional

resources

available

conducive

conditions

3.15
Simply absorbing developing countries into interna-
tional trade is not likely to be enough to lift them out of
poverty and inequality. This would require creating in these
countries
to development, making
economic and political progress and implementing a policy of
wealth redistribution from the rich countries to the poor. At
the same time donor countries need to understand that devel-
opment aid is not intended only to benefit poor countries — it
is also crucial to the future of rich countries as poverty and
inequality constitute a threat to the security and development
potential of these countries. This last point, the EESC believes,
is one of the tasks best performed by organised civil society.

3.16
EU development policy can therefore make a positive
contribution to integrating migratory flows and to boosting a
policy of co-development with the sending countries (11). Coop-
eration with the countries of origin is crucial to managing legal
migratory flows and for migrants to be admitted with complete
respect for their rights, as full citizens (12). Migration must also

(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,
in many
cases, murdered.

imprisoned and,

(11) See EESC Opinion on the Green paper on an EU approach to mana-

ging economic migration OJ C 255 of 14.10.2005.

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

of 3.9.2003).

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/83

contribute to the development of migrants' countries of
origin (13). Policies compensating for the brain drain must there-
fore be put in place, the abusive rates applied to remittances
that migrants send to their families in their countries of origin
must be stopped and these individuals must be helped to
return to their countries
for
example, to set up productive businesses.

to boost development and,

4. Criteria for mobilising European development policy

4.1
The issue of consistency between policies — already a
long-standing issue in Community aid and which has its legal
base in the Treaties — takes on renewed importance in the
new international context, which is marked by the security
agenda and by the effects of globalisation on trade, agriculture,
employment, migration, etc. The recent Commission Commu-
nication clearly demonstrates the relevance of this issue and the
EU's determination to provide an appropriate response. The
EBA (Everything But Arms)
initiative represented a new
approach to consistency as regards trade policy towards poor
countries.

4.2
EU development policy is not designed to be a remedial
instrument, geared to reducing possible damage to the develop-
ment of poor countries caused by other policies, such as trade
or security. The EESC believes that better coordination between
the various Commission directorates (between the trade and
employment directorates, for example) would help to make this
approach more effective, as would a periodic evaluation,
in
which organised civil society would play a leading role, of the
impact of Community policy on social cohesion in developing
countries.

4.3
This consistency across all EU policies, should not be
used, however, to water down the content of development
policy, putting it at the service of other Community actions
and ignoring the specific characteristics and objectives of devel-
opment measures. By the same token,
in a Union which is
increasingly involved in external action and which is constantly
changing, development policy must retain some independence
from the other strands of external action if it is to be able to
achieve its aims and goals.

The EESC considers

4.4
that Community development
policy and the policies of the 25 Member States must be
brought further into line with one another. The support of all

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

Member States for the MDGs and for the positions of the
OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) should
make this easier. Donor country policies, which often clash,
should be more consistent with one another. This lack of
consistency leads to high transaction costs, wastage, duplication
of work, an unfocused approach and considerable complica-
tions for the recipient countries. At the Barcelona European
Summit of March 2002, the EU gave a commitment to adopt
practical measures on coordinating policies and aligning proce-
dures before 2004, both within the European Commission and
in the Member States. Nevertheless,
the recommendations
arising from those commitments have not really been put into
practice. The EESC believes that effectively bringing EU and
Member States' development policies closer into line with one
another is crucial to the future of Community development
policy. As far as it can, the EESC will stimulate a discussion
with European civil society organisations, in order to create a
common European platform for development policy. The EESC
also supports the Commission's position on the need for a
Europe-level development policy that
involves both the
Member States and the Commission itself.

4.5
The main added value of a Community development
policy should be to enhance coordination and complementarity
with Member State policies. The EU does have some compara-
tive advantages, such as its size, its image of neutrality and its
contribution to World Funds. All of these advantages should be
used.

4.6
At the same time, the EESC supports the idea of moving
ahead on the EU's participating with its own voice in all multi-
lateral forums touching on development. The EU must play an
active role in reforming the multilateral system, adopting a
common position. This should apply to the United Nations
system, as part of the process opened by its Secretary-General,
and to the international financial institutions and other multi-
lateral forums such as the DAC, the Paris Club, the G8 and the
WTO. The EU's ability to wield influence as an international
actor with real power depends on its ability to maintain a
united front
the EU must
in multilateral bodies. Similarly,
strengthen mechanisms for consultation and coordination on
the ground with the UN specialised agencies and other donors.

4.7
The institutional dimension of development and enhan-
cing local institutions' capacities in the recipient countries is
crucial. Stronger institutions are the key to achieving good
governance, which allows
to be allocated and
managed in such a way that they meet needs whilst adhering
to the criteria of participation,
transparency, accountability,
combating corruption, fairness and the rule of law. Increasing
the capacities and resources of CSOs is also crucial to ensuring
that
the development
process themselves.

these countries can take charge of

resources

C 24/84

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

4.8
In this connection, the EU should capitalise on and learn
from the cooperation programmes with the new Member
States, which have in a short space of time progressed from
being recipients of aid to members of a community of donors.
Their appreciation of the standpoint of the receiving partner
could prove extremely useful in passing on innovative methods
for managing aid.

5.3
Drawing up long-term policies to combat poverty and
making better use of development aid transfers require an effec-
tive pact between the democratic authorities of the recipient
countries and the economic and social powers in those coun-
tries.

4.9
The high degree of decentralisation in those countries
which are the recipients of Community cooperation means that
mechanisms for the participation of the various partners must
be improved and that forms of coordination that apply this
‘bottom-up’ approach to cooperation must be implemented on
the ground.

Improving coordination and consultation mechanisms
4.10
should result
in greater efficiency and effectiveness in aid
because transaction costs will diminish. Efficiency is affected by
many other factors, however, and monitoring this must form
an integral part of all Community cooperation. The Commis-
sion has put in place rigorous systems for evaluating and moni-
toring the quality of aid; these should be used more extensively,
not only because they offer the necessary accountability but
above all because of the lessons they can teach us. Other more
issues, such as studying the fungibility (14) of aid,
general
should be incorporated into aid assessments carried out by the
Community institutions.

The EESC believes that strengthening civil society orga-
5.4
nisations (workers, employers, consumers, human rights orga-
nisations, etc.) in the southern hemisphere should become one
of the main priorities of EU development policy. Reducing
poverty and inequality involve to a large extent increasing civil
society organisations' capacity for making demands, for nego-
tiating, for achieving compromises and for participating. EU
development policy should, accordingly, not only promote
their genuine participation in actions arising from development
aid but should also strengthen genuine civil society organisa-
tions and boost their recognition within their own societies (15)
as fundamental stakeholders in development. To this end,
specific funding lines should be set up.

4.11
The principle of ownership, which has to date been
applied differently in different geographical contexts, should be
harmonised, taking advantage of existing good practices and
learning lessons from their implementation. Participation and
ownership should mark every phase of the planning of activ-
ities, programmes or projects;
from discussing indicative
national programmes to ex-post evaluations of actions.

5.5
Furthermore, EU development policy should promote a
legal framework in recipient countries which will enable civil
society organisations to become involved in their country's
development: making financial resources available for capacity
building, consolidating arrangements for ongoing participation
and dialogue, setting up procedures for consulting these organi-
sations at all
indicative
programmes, and disseminating good practice. European orga-
nisations should equally be consulted on EU-supported actions.

stages of national and regional

5. Stakeholders in development policy

Community development policy is a public policy invol-
5.1
ving many stakeholders. This fact should be given greater
recognition by the Community institutions by making it easier
for the various European organisations to participate in this
policy. Cooperation between the various stakeholders, both
public and private, is a prerequisite for development policy to
be effective and consistent.

5.2
Implementing the principles of association, participation
and ownership has resulted in improved cooperation on devel-
opment, which must be maintained and extended, with greater
involvement by other social actors, and not only governmental
actors.

(14) Term denoting the inappropriate use of aid resources by the benefi-

ciary.

5.6
To date, only the ACP countries recognise formal invol-
vement of CSO actors at all stages of development cooperation.
This obligation, set out in the Cotonou Agreement, does not
exist in cooperation with other regions, where only informal
consultation takes place (16). The EESC calls for any future EU
development policy to extend this initiative to other regions,
establishing formal mechanisms for involving civil society orga-
nisations in planning,
implementing and evaluating develop-
ment policies.

(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 Orga-
nised civil society and European governance:
the Committee's
contribution to the drafting of the White Paper lists the representa-
tiveness 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.

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/85

5.7
The Cotonou Agreement offers a unique opportunity to
non-state actors to access a percentage of the EU funds allo-
cated to each country (EDF funds for the National and Regional
Indicative Programmes). The aim of these funds is to strengthen
the capacity of civil society and enable it to become actively
involved in implementing regional or national strategies to alle-
viate poverty.

The EESC considers that a substantial effort is required to raise
people's awareness about development aid. The emergence of a
degree of
‘global citizen's consciousness’, which is evident
primarily in environmental issues, should be consolidated and
extended to the issues of poverty, inequality and world public
assets. The EESC believes that schools,
the media and, of
course, civil society organisations must be involved in this task.
The EESC would be happy to act as an instrument
for
furthering this policy, in cooperation with the European institu-
tions.

The EESC calls for the civil society consultation model to be
employed in the EU's relations with other regions, such as
Latin America and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership coun-
tries.

Furthermore,

5.8
this review of EU development policy
must strive to ensure that rights to participate are not only
recognised but also implemented. In practice, there are serious
loopholes in the implementation of what has been agreed,
which makes it difficult for CSO representatives to fully under-
stand the agreements and for effective consultation to take
place. Criteria for the representativeness of civil society organi-
sations also need to be defined and obstacles to access to Com-
munity funding removed.

5.9
for
Establishing stable and democratic frameworks
labour relations is key to promoting the objective of decent
employment. It is also, however, the cornerstone of economic
development. The EESC therefore considers that promoting
balanced social dialogue should be made an objective of Euro-
pean development policy. Given the wealth of European experi-
ence in this field, the EESC considers that European unions and
employers' organisations must be involved in this task.

5.10
Businesses must play a more proactive role in making
sustainable development possible, as acknowledged by the
OECD in its codes of conduct for multinational enterprises (17).
EU development policy should, the EESC believes, contribute to
encouraging Corporate Social Responsibility, particularly in
those countries to which it gives aid. The EESC, as expressed in
previous statements (18), believes that if businesses act in coun-
tries benefiting from aid at least in the same way that they
(generally) do in Europe, in accordance with the same labour,
social and environmental criteria, they will be making a major
contribution to the economic and social development of those
countries.

5.11
Development policy can only remain successful and
grow if it enjoys adequate backing from society as a whole.

(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).

6. Priorities: concentration and differentiation in EU

development policy

6.1
In order to ensure that aid is more effective and has a
greater impact, it would appear reasonable to concentrate on
certain sectors to which the EU can bring greater added value
or where this is something that other donors cannot provide.
Nevertheless, experience tells us that it is difficult and some-
times inappropriate to set such priorities or to determine in
advance what the Community added value might be. At all
events, country programming should be used as an instrument
for negotiations between partners. Poverty Reduction Strategy
Papers (PRSP) should be the cornerstone of this work.

6.2
The EESC is of the view that the motives underpinning
development policy must be political as well as ethical: unless
today's inequalities are remedied, globalisation will not work.
We therefore believe that EU development policy cannot
simply aim to solve the problems of underdevelopment. Part of
the added value that the EU should provide is its action on
such as health
global multi-sectoral
(including reproductive health), education, gender equality,
environmental protection,
the creation of productive enter-
prises and employment, and decent jobs. Crucial to this is
providing development cooperation with additional financial
resources from new funding instruments.

strategic objectives,

regions, particularly in Asia, or countries

Community cooperation has, since its inception, been
6.3
highly concentrated in geographical
terms, which becomes
extremely complex where the ACP countries are concerned, as
demonstrated by the Cotonou Agreement. The experience of
the successive Lomé and Cotonou Conventions should benefit
other
that are
committed to achieving the MDGs. Consequently, there is a
need to promote more flexible, permanent and structured
mechanisms with other parts of the world receiving Com-
munity aid; they must go beyond the traditional pattern of
summits and agreements and provide a more strategic vision of
cooperation. Furthermore, Community aid should reach all
poor countries.

C 24/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

6.4
The EESC shares the desire to make sub-Saharan Africa
a priority zone for EU development aid. Nevertheless, to be
effective, this project must be matched by better governance in
level, which involves
Africa, at both national and regional
African Inter-State organisations, States and civil society organi-
sations. The latter, because they are independent, close to the
people and are able to react, can ensure that the citizens take
genuine responsibility for the development policies that affect
them directly.

6.5
Accordingly, the EESC proposes that it should be made
easier for African CSOs to access Community funding, guaran-
teeing them direct access at national
level. A horizontal
programme to fund non-State actors should also be put in
place and civil society should be increasingly and systematically
involved in drawing up and implementing cooperation policies
and strategies.

To ensure that economic development benefits as many
6.6
people as possible and does not lead to abuses, the EESC would
like EU development aid activities to take account of the princi-
ples of social cohesion and decent employment for all. These
principles will be better protected if genuine social dialogue
takes place and, more generally, dialogue with organisations
representing civil society. To this end, the EESC will work
together, as recommended in the Commission Communica-
tion (19), with the African Economic, Social and Cultural
Committee, exchanging experiences and knowledge in the rele-
vant spheres.

6.7
Community development policy must pay greater atten-
tion to middle-income countries which nonetheless face major
domestic problems of poverty and inequality. We should thus
focus on the constant decrease in the percentages of EU aid to
Latin America, the region in which the greatest inequalities can
be seen and where middle-income countries, such as Brazil,
Uruguay and Mexico, have vast pockets of poverty. A system
of indicators should be set up in order to monitor the situation
in countries like these. The EESC calls on the EU to attach
greater priority to Latin America in its development policy.

6.8 We welcome the Commission proposal to create specific
measures for transitional situations, which will make it easier
to develop the links between aid, reconstruction and develop-
ment, adapting to the reality of changing situations and fragile
States, allowing for differences where appropriate. By the same
token, we would have to strengthen the preventive and early-
warning components for cooperation in such situations.

(19) Speeding up progress towards the Millennium Development Goals

(COM (2005) 132 final).

7. Funding

7.1
The Union has given a commitment to achieving at least
what was agreed at Monterrey and all the indications are that
this commitment needs to be stepped up if the MDGs are to be
achieved. The Barcelona European Council of March 2002
agreed to increase Official Development Assistance (ODA) to
0.39 % of GDP in 2006 which, whilst appearing to be a signifi-
cant commitment in comparison to the current average of
0.22 %,
is far from the level EU Member States provided in
1990, which stood at 0.44 %. The Council of 23-24 May 2005
sets new, more demanding targets and gives a commitment to
ensuring that the EU average reaches 0.56 % of GDP by 2010
and the package also differentiates between the 15 old Member
States and the 10 new ones. It seems clear, however, that an
ongoing and sustained commitment is needed if the MDGs are
to be achieved.

7.2
The commitment made by the G8 countries in July
2005 regarding the writing-off of the entire multilateral debt of
the world's 18 poorest countries is a significant step forward,
which must be supported. We will have to wait until this is
to see whether a
definitely confirmed and, as announced,
further 20 countries will benefit from similar measures. The
EESC believes that these measures should be extended to cover
all least-developed countries and should be funded with genu-
inely additional resources and not simply by redirecting funds
intended for public development aid.

As a consequence of this, the Financial Perspectives for
7.3
2007-2013 will need to find a clearer and more specific way of
incorporating the necessary financial commitments to reach the
MDGs.

7.4
The ways of funding development have changed over
time, gradually adjusting to the necessary ownership by the
partners. Community cooperation must make progress on
long-term predictability, and on multiannual planning mechan-
isms which minimise the detrimental effects that changes to
budget allocations and aid ‘volatility’ can have.

7.5
The need for aid that is predictable and stable conflicts
with the principle of national budgets being adjusted annually.
This is one of the reasons underpinning the need for additional
sources of funding. The other fundamental reason is the need
to secure additional funds for development, to be added to the
traditional sources of financing. The lack of agreement between
the Member States on new sources of additional funding to
complement (ODA), as a means of channelling new resources
into achieving the MDGs,
is delaying their implementation.
There are basically two possible innovations for additional
mechanisms for funding development aid. First, there is the
International Finance Facility (IFF) and second, there is the
imposition of international taxes. Apart from the difficulties of
obtaining the political commitment to set these instruments in
motion,
in the case of the first approach, serious questions
remain as to the management and use of the funds. As regards

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/87

the second approach, the main difficulty lies in achieving an
international consensus on its application. The EESC considers
that both mechanisms have the potential to be viable and to
that they are set in
complement one another.
motion, whilst at the same time ensuring that they remain
genuinely additional.

It is crucial

7.6
Ensuring the total decoupling of aid must be an ongoing
aim for development in coming years. Following the many
proposals on this matter (20), the EESC urges the Council to
push ahead with the Regulation on decoupling aid and ensure
that the Member States follow up this issue, even going further
than the DAC recommendations.

proactive measures on debt, such as exchanging debt for educa-
tion or social
investment or looking at debt cancellation in
regions affected by major disasters.

7.11
Increased concern about what are known as Interna-
tional Public Goods should mean that specific funding can be
allocated to protect them. To this end, the EU should put
together an Action Plan on the importance of protection and
means of funding it, and be flexible in allocating resources.
Global funds and initiatives implemented in recent years for
specific cases, such as AIDS, water, vaccines, etc., appear to
provide this element of flexibility, and Community support for
this type of initiative — already launched by some Member
States (21) — should therefore continue.

7.7
The current position of the donor countries and of EU
policy in particular is geared towards reducing aid for projects
and towards funding the budgets of recipient-country govern-
ments, in order to give them the means to develop their own
policies. The EESC considers that this should never be done at
the expense of achieving the aims for which EU aid is provided.
Furthermore, this form of funding can promote the principle of
ownership, provided that it does not replace old-style project
monitoring with a new — political — system of setting condi-
tions for the direction that economic and social policies should
take.

7.12
As we have already stated, the EESC proposes that the
specific problems facing middle-income countries which also
contain pockets of poverty and where many sections of the
population live in destitution must be incorporated into EU
development strategy; although the appropriate forms of aid in
this case are loans or other combined forms of aid rather than
just non-repayable aid.
In these cases, the parameters must
complement the MDGs by setting social cohesion as an objec-
tive (22),
in line with the EU-Latin America and Caribbean
Summit held in Guadalajara in 2004. Achieving social cohesion
requires, amongst other things, the reform of budget manage-
ment and a progressive tax system.

7.8
Instruments for funding development must be consistent
with the aims that they wish to achieve. Greater flexibility in
Community cooperation appears to be necessary given the
long timescales for managing the cycle of projects or actions
that have to date received European aid. Furthermore, it would
not be appropriate to mix instruments for general economic
cooperation with those for development cooperation. Develop-
its aims,
ment policy is relatively independent in terms of
which also requires its instruments to be tailor-made to some
extent, both as regards planning and delivery mechanisms.

7.9
Flexibility is even more important where reconstruction
in the wake of a war or disaster is taking place or in crisis
situations where slowness and inflexibility make action totally
impossible. Initiatives such as the Peace Fund for Africa are
better attuned to the realities of such situations.

7.10
The EU as a whole has complied quite well with the
enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative to
reduce external debt. In the short term, however, this initiative
cannot solve long-term debt and debt-servicing problems,
which means
that alternatives must be considered. The
Commission has proposed short-term measures for countries
recovering from war or serious disaster, but the long-term
problem remains to be solved. The EESC proposes more

8. Proposals

The EESC believes that combating poverty must be a
8.1
key factor in EU initiatives for fairer, safer and more ecologi-
cally responsible globalisation. It must therefore be the logical
extension of its internal model for economic development and
social harmony (23).

8.2
The EESC considers that EU development policy must
play a key role both in disseminating the EU's fundamental
values and preventing the adverse consequences of poverty and
inequality (insecurity, draining of natural resources, uncon-
trolled migration). The EESC therefore proposes that EU devel-
opment policy have equivalent status to security policy.

(21) The European Commission draw up a study on the issue of addi-
tional 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 initia-
tives 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.

(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.

(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).

C 24/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.1.2006

8.3
In view of the above, the EESC believes that, in the new
context of globalisation, the promotion of the European social
model (social regulation, arrangements for reaching agreement
between the social partners, universal social protection systems)
should form a central pillar of EU development policy.

for the brain drain, eliminating obstacles to the transfer of
remittances from migrants, and helping migrants to return in
order to set up productive businesses. At all events, migration
policies must not become a new source of conditionality in
development policy.

from developing countries and of

The EESC considers that the reduction of tariff barriers
8.4
for exports
subsidies
(including subsidies for farming) linked to export prices could
help (24) to reduce poverty, even if the short-term effects are
ambivalent (given that developing countries that are net impor-
ters might be affected by price increases). Likewise, it calls for
the reform of the agreement on trade-related intellectual prop-
erty. The EESC therefore recommends that the opening-up of
trade in the developing countries be geared towards their
gradual integration into the world markets, and be accompa-
nied by programmes for structural reinforcement
in these
countries.

8.5
The EESC proposes that the Association Agreements
between the EU and various countries and regions in the world
incorporate a social dimension which should include, at the
very least, promoting decent work, developing public and
private social protection systems, and fully respecting the
employment rights enshrined in the ILO fundamental conven-
tions. The EESC also proposes that these Agreements include
mechanisms for the involvement of organised civil society.

8.6
Decent work, as defined by the International Labour
Organisation (ILO), is an essential factor in eradicating poverty
and improving social cohesion. The EESC therefore proposes
that decent work be made the 9th Millennium Development
Goal.

8.7
The defence of human rights is one of the cornerstones
of EU development policy. Hence the EESC proposes that the
policy incorporate measures geared towards protecting defen-
ders of human rights, including human rights in the workplace,
in the regions with which there is cooperation.

8.8
The EESC considers that an environmental dimension
should be added as an indicator of effectiveness in the imple-
mentation of development strategies.
It also believes that
carrying out environmental impact studies should be made a
prerequisite for projects and actions of a certain scale.

8.9
The EESC believes that EU development policy should
including
contribute to the integration of migratory flows,
regularisation and rights. Likewise, it should favour a policy of
co-development with the countries of origin by compensating

it

is increasingly important

8.10
The EESC calls for all EU policies to be consistent with
the development strategy, and for the development policy to be
independent and specific in relation to other policies. The EESC
to harmonise the
believes that
development policies of the Community and of Member States.
A joint European platform or agenda must therefore be set up
for the European development policy, setting out timeframes
and monitoring systems for Member States. The EESC also
supports the participation of Member States and the EU in
multilateral
forums, with common positions. The EESC
supports the Commission's position on the need for a Europe-
level development policy that involves both the Member States
and the Commission itself.

8.11
The eradication of poverty requires, among other
things, a different distribution of power and opportunities. In
order to achieve this goal, it is essential to consolidate the insti-
tutions of a social and democratic state governed by the rule of
law. It also requires the strengthening of civil society organisa-
tions. The EESC therefore proposes drawing up budget head-
ings devoted to the achievement of this goal.

8.12
Following the example of EU-ACP relations, the EESC
calls upon the European Commission, Council and European
Parliament to support the extension of the EESC's role in rela-
tions with ACP economic and social interest groups to other
regions, such as Latin America and the Euro-Mediterranean
countries. The EESC calls on the political partners to endorse
the following: political mandate and financial resources to
interest
allow for the participation of economic and social
groups; institutional recognition of civil society dialogue and
the formal and regular participation of civil society in the
monitoring of association agreements, summits,
joint parlia-
mentary committees, and the policies relevant to civil society,
such as social cohesion and decent work; support to the EESC
to promote both the consultative function and social dialogue,
in collaboration with the ILO and other international organisa-
tions. Within this context,
the European
Commission, Council and European Parliament to support a
specific reference to the EESC in point 2.2 of the Joint Declara-
tion on the EU Development Policy, as an effective and neces-
sary facilitator of dialogue with local economic and social
interest groups.

the EESC asks

(24) According to studies carried out by various international institu-
tions, 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.

The EESC believes that the promotion of stable and
8.13
democratic frameworks for labour relations and social dialogue
and the encouragement of corporate social responsibility are
essential objectives of the EU development policy.

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/89

8.14
The EESC believes that the added value of Community
action should be geared towards global multi-sectoral strategic
objectives. It also shares the desire to make sub-Saharan Africa
long as the conditions are established for
a priority, as
improved governance in this area. The EESC also calls for Com-
munity aid to reach all poor countries.

The EESC considers

8.15
that EU development policy
should pay greater attention to middle-income countries which
face major domestic problems of poverty and inequality. This
definition includes certain Latin American countries with which
the EU is aiming to set up a strategic partnership, along with
some Asian countries.

8.16
The EESC proposes that the debt cancellation measures
approved by the G8 countries be extended to cover all poor
countries and be funded with genuinely additional resources.

to be effective, will have to obtain a broad political consensus
— could be viable and could complement one another.

The EESC believes that the decoupling of aid must be
8.18
one of the central aims of the EU development strategy. It
urges the Council to push ahead with the Regulation on decou-
pling aid, even going further than the recommendations of the
Development Assistance Committee (DAC).

The EESC proposes using new debt exchange measures,
8.19
such as those focusing on education or social
investment
(return of migrants, strengthening of social organisations, etc.).

Achieving greater efficiency in aid remains a challenge
8.20
for all those involved. The EESC considers that efforts should
be pursued and extended in order to meet the development
objectives more effectively.

The EESC believes that the implementation of addi-
8.17
tional sources of funding is necessary in order to achieve the
development objectives and preserve world public assets.
It
believes that both the International Finance Facility (IFF) and
the imposition of dedicated international taxes– which, in order

The EESC believes that it is essential to set up a policy
8.21
designed to increase backing from society for the development
policy and raise awareness among citizens worldwide. The
EESC would be happy to act as an instrument for furthering
this policy, in cooperation with the European institutions.

Brussels, 29 September 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND