The challenge of EU Development Cooperation Policy for the new Member States#European Parliament resolution of  13 March 2008  on the Challenge of EU Development Cooperation Policy for the New Member States (2007/2140(INI))
Date: 2008-03-13
Institutions: Committee on Development, European Parliament
Subjects: EU Member State, EU programme, cooperation policy, development aid, disclosure of information, education policy, sustainable development

C 66 E/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.3.2009

Thursday 13 March 2008

Considers that a key aim in the first years of the Geeref, which is an open-ended fund, should be the
19.
development of exemplars that can inspire further contributions,
increasing the flow of investments in
renewable energies and energy efficiency to developing countries and transition economies and sparing far
more people than the anticipated 1 to 3 million people from energy poverty;

Stresses that the Geeref must give priority to serving the specific needs of the Least Developed Coun-
20.
tries and to interventions that have demonstrated strong linkages to poverty reduction; notes that the scope
of the Geeref is to support regional subfunds for Sub-Saharan Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Island States, the
countries of the European Neighbourhood (including North Africa and non-EU Eastern Europe), Latin
America and Asia; calls, however, for special emphasis on serving the needs of the ACP countries; calls on
the Commission to ensure that funding is not allocated to only one or two subfunds when appropriations
are distributed; strongly recommends that any subfunds for China and Russia, if included in the portfolio,
do not absorb all the available resources and that they should be of particular interest as pilot-projects;

21.
Recognises however that, as currently envisaged, the Geeref may have difficulty in complying with
the criteria for Official Development Assistance established by the OECD Development Assistance
Committee, as investment will be steered by prospects for financial returns rather than development needs;
recognises the risk that poverty reduction, mentioned as a specific objective of the Geeref, might become
only a secondary priority of the fund; stresses, therefore, that, in addition to developing clear development
criteria to screen projects eligible for Geeref funding, the Commission must also significantly increase grant-
based development aid in order to provide sustainable energy services to the poorest;

Calls on the Commission to report regularly on progress in implementing the fund and on projects

22.
supported, and specifically to provide an annual progress report to Parliament;

Calls on the Commission to propose ways of facilitating intensive communication and the exchange
23.
of experience relating to the various projects, their specific results and their contribution to sustainable
development;

24.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.

The challenge of EU Development Cooperation Policy for the new Member States

P6_TA(2008)0097

European Parliament resolution of 13 March 2008 on the Challenge of EU Development
Cooperation Policy for the New Member States (2007/2140(INI))

(2009/C 66 E/07)

The European Parliament,

Development cooperation legislation

— having regard to Articles 177 to 181 of the EC Treaty,

— having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and
Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the
other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1), as amended by the Agreement amending the Part-
nership Agreement signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (2),

(1) OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3. Agreement last amended by Decision No 1/2006 of the ACP-EC Council of Ministers

(OJ L 247, 9.9.2006, p. 22).
(2) OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 27.

20.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66 E/39

— having regard to the Millennium Declaration endorsed by the United Nations in 2000, the 2005 UN

Report entitled ‘Investing in Development’ and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),

— having regard to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness adopted on 2 March 2005,

— having regard to the 2002 Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development,

Thursday 13 March 2008

— having regard to the Joint statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the
the European Parliament and the Commission on
(the European Consensus on

Member States meeting within the Council,
European Union Development Policy:
Development) (1),

‘The European Consensus’

— having regard to the joint statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the
Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission:
‘The
European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid’ (2),

— having regard to the conclusions of the Council and of the representatives of the governments of the
Member States meeting within the Council of 15 May 2007 on an EU Code of Conduct on Comple-
mentarity and Division of Labour in Development Policy,

— having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Policy Coherence for Development: Accel-

erating progress towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals’ (COM(2005)0134),

— having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Accelerating progress towards attaining
the Millennium Development Goals — Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness’
(COM(2005)0133),

— having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘EU Aid: Delivering more, better and faster’
(COM(2006)0087) and the conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of
11 April 2006 based thereon,

— having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Annual Report 2006 on the European
Community's Development Policy and the Implementation of External Assistance’ (COM(2006)0326),

— having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (3) (DCI),

— having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Governance in the European Consensus
on Development: Towards a harmonised approach within European Union’ (COM(2006)0421),

— having regard to the international development cooperation policy of the Czech Republic, including
the Plan for Bilateral Development Cooperation 2007 and the country strategy papers for Angola and
Zambia,

— having regard to the international development cooperation policy of Hungary,

— having regard to the development cooperation policy programme of Latvia for the period 2006

to 2010,

— having regard to the development cooperation policy of Lithuania for the period 2006 to 2010,

— having regard to the development cooperation and humanitarian aid strategy of Estonia for the period

2006 to 2010,

— having regard to the strategy for Poland's development cooperation issued in 2003 and the Polish aid

programme 2007,

— having regard to the national strategy of international development cooperation of Romania,

— having regard to the medium-term strategy for the Official Development Assistance (ODA) of Slovakia

for the period 2003 to 2008 and the 2006 ODA national programme of Slovakia,

(1) OJ C 46, 24.2.2006, p. 1.
(2) The Statement on the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid was approved by Council on 19 November and by
the European Parliament on 29 November and was signed by the Presidents of the Commission, Council and the
European Parliament on 18 December 2007.

(3) OJ L 378, 27.12.2006, p. 41.

C 66 E/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.3.2009

Thursday 13 March 2008

— having regard to Slovenian development cooperation for 2002 to 2004,

— having regard to the 2007 Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) Aid Watch report entitled ‘Hold
the Applause! EU governments risk breaking aid promises’ by the European NGO confederation for
relief and development (Concord), which includes an NGO assessment of each Member State's perfor-
mance in terms of ODA,

— having regard to the EU strategy for Central Asia (Strategy for a New Partnership) 2007 to 2013,

— having regard to ‘The European Consensus on Development: the Contribution of Development Educa-
tion and Awareness Raising’, a strategy framework drawn up by representatives of the EU institutions,
the Member States, civil society and other stakeholders, and presented at the European Development
Days in Lisbon in November 2007,

— having regard to the European Consensus on NGO Communication held from 7 to 9 November

2006,

— having regard to the Council (Development) resolution of 8 November 2001 on development educa-

tion and raising European public awareness of development cooperation,

— having regard to the Maastricht Declaration by the Europe-wide Global Education Congress of
15 to 17 November 2002 representing parliamentarians,
local and regional authorities and civil
society organisations from the member states of the Council of Europe on a European Strategy Frame-
work for Improving and Increasing Global Education in Europe to the Year 2015,

— having regard to the Palermo Process of 2003, which was launched with a view to creating an
informal forum in which players could debate major developments and issues in European develop-
ment aid in order to complement, informally, the Commission's official consultation procedures,

— having regard to the European Conference on Awareness-Raising and Development Education for

North-South Solidarity held in Brussels on 19 and 20 May 2005,

— having regard to the Helsinki Conference on European Development Education held on 3-4 July

2006,

— having regard to the 18-month programme on development policy of the German, Portuguese and

Slovenian Presidencies,

— having regard to Article 49 of the EU Treaty,

— having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Wider Europe — Neighbourhood: A New
Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours’
(COM(2003)0104) and
Parliament's resolution of 20 November 2003 on Wider Europe — Neighbourhood: A New Frame-
work for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours (1),

— having regard to ‘A Secure Europe In A Better World — The European Security Strategy’ approved by

the European Council in Brussels on 12 December 2003,

— having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘European Neighbourhood Policy —

Strategy Paper’ (COM(2004)0373),

— having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘On the Commission Proposal for Action

Plans Under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)’ (COM(2004)0795),

— having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘European Neighbourhood Policy —

Recommendations for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and for Egypt and Lebanon’ (COM(2005)0072),

— having regard to the Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament

entitled ‘On Strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy’ (COM(2006)0726),

— having regard to the Action Plan for the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) adopted by

the Commission on 14 November 2006,

(1) OJ C 87 E, 7.4.2004, p. 506.

20.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66 E/41

Thursday 13 March 2008

— having regard to the Commission staff working document accompanying its above-mentioned

communication entitled ‘On Strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy’ (SEC(2006)1504),

— having regard to the Commission staff working document (SEC(2007)0840) annexed to its Communi-
cation entitled ‘Annual Report 2007 on the European Community's Development Policy and the
Implementation of External Assistance in 2006’ (COM(2007)0349),

— having regard to the ENP progress

reports on Ukraine

(SEC(2006)1505)

and Moldova

(SEC(2006)1506),

— having regard to the Commission publication of 24 November 2005 entitled ‘European Neighbour-

hood Policy: A Year of Progress’ (IP/05/1467),

— having regard to the communication to the College from Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner entitled

‘Implementing and Promoting the European Neighbourhood Policy’ (SEC(2005)1521),

— having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Part-
nership Instrument (1) (ENPI),

— having regard to Council Decision 2006/62/EC of 23 January 2006 enabling countries covered by the
European Neighbourhood Policy, as well as Russia, to benefit from the Technical Assistance and Infor-
mation Exchange (TAIEX) Programme (2),

— having regard to Council Decision 2005/47/EC of 22 December 2004 amending Decision
2000/24/EC to take into account the enlargement of the European Union and the European Neigh-
bourhood Policy (3),

— having regard to the report entitled ‘European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
Paper

(separately):

Belarus/Moldova/Ukraine/Armenia/Azerbaijan/Georgia
2007-2013 and National Indicative Programme 2007-2010’,

Country

Strategy

— having regard to EC-ENPI Eastern Regional Strategy Paper (RSP) 2007-2013, which complements the

Country Strategy Papers adopted by the Commission,

— having regard to the ENPI Eastern Regional Indicative Programme 2007-2010, which defines in more

detail the focus of intervention under the Eastern regional envelope of the new ENPI,

— having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Black Sea Synergy — A New Regional

Cooperation Initiative’ (COM(2007)0160),

— having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘On the General Approach to Enable ENP
Programmes’

in Community Agencies

and Community

to Participate

Partner Countries
(COM(2006)0724),

— having regard to the paper of June 2006, part of the Occasional Papers series of the Directorate-
General for Economic and Financial Affairs , entitled ‘European Neighbourhood Policy: Economic
Review of ENP Countries’,

— having regard to Capacity Building Scheme II to support the new Member States and candidate coun-

tries in the area of development cooperation, launched by the Commission in July 2007,

— having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2006 on the European Neighbourhood Policy (4),

— having regard to partnership and cooperation agreements,

— having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Development (A6-0036/2008),

General comments

A.

whereas in 2006 the EU provided ODA of 47 524 million euro, which accounts for 57 % of
ODA worldwide, a figure which is expected to rise to 78 626 million euro by 2010,

(1) OJ L 310, 9.11.2006, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 32, 4.2.2006, p. 80.
(3) OJ L 21, 25.1.2005, p. 9.
(4) OJ C 287 E, 24.11.2006, p. 312.

C 66 E/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.3.2009

Thursday 13 March 2008

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

whereas the new Member States have committed themselves to achieving an ODA target of 0,17 % of
gross national income (GNI) by 2010 and of 0,33 % by 2015, with future contributions to strengthen
the EU's role in international development cooperation,

whereas the development aid of the new Member States concerns European development cooperation
policy as well as the European Neighbourhood Policy,

whereas the priority countries targeted by the development cooperation of the new Member States
are the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries and the countries in the Western
Balkans, as well as a few countries which are members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)
Group of States,

whereas the institutional framework remains one of the most important challenges of efficient devel-
opment cooperation for the new Member States,

the major challenges facing the new Member States is the need to build up
whereas one of
cross-party political and public support for development co-operation, including support for the least
developed countries of the world,

whereas awareness of development co-operation topics needs further improvement in most of the
Member States,

whereas the right of Member States to pursue development strategies as shaped by their nationally
determined priorities is a fully legitimate expression of their sovereignty and should always be
acknowledged and respected as such,

Priority countries for the new Member States

I.

J.

K.

L.

M.

N.

O.

P.

Q.

whereas the major part of the bilateral ODA of Estonia and Latvia is targeted at CIS countries, espe-
cially Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, and Afghanistan; whereas Estonia's ODA spending in 2005 was
0,08 % and Latvia's ODA spending in 2005 was 0,07 %,

whereas the major part of the bilateral ODA of Lithuania is targeted at Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, the
countries of the South Caucasus, Afghanistan (Ghor province) and Iraq, and only one ACP country,
Mauritania, and in 2005 Lithuania spent 0,06 % on ODA,

whereas the major part of the bilateral ODA of Poland is targeted at Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and
Georgia, and Poland's ODA in 2005 amounted to 0,07 %,

whereas the major part of
(Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina), and in 2005 Hungary's ODA spending was 0,11 %,

the bilateral ODA of Hungary is targeted at

the Western Balkans

whereas the major part of the bilateral ODA of Romania is targeted at Moldova, Serbia and Georgia,
and Romania's ODA amounted to 0,04 % in 2006,

whereas the major part of the bilateral ODA of Slovenia is targeted at the Western Balkans (Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Albania)
and Moldova, and in 2005 Slovenia spent 0,11 % on ODA,

whereas the major part of the bilateral ODA of Slovakia is targeted at Serbia, Montenegro, Kyrgyzstan,
Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus, and Slovakia's ODA spending in 2005 was 0,12 %,

whereas the major part of the bilateral ODA of the Czech Republic is targeted at Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Moldova, Mongolia, Serbia, Montenegro and Vietnam, and in 2005 the Czech Republic
spent 0,11 % on ODA,

whereas Bulgaria adopted its national strategy for development cooperation only at the end of 2007,
and its priorities lie with Albania, FYROM, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine and Moldova, and its
ODA spending for 2005 is estimated to be around 0,04 %, which equals Bulgaria's contribution to
multilateral institutions,

20.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66 E/43

Relationship between the new Member States and the ACP countries

Thursday 13 March 2008

R.

S.

T.

U.

V.

W.

X.

Y.

whereas Estonia, Latvia and Romania do not target any ACP countries under European development
cooperation policy; although Estonia has not ruled out that in future it will establish bilateral
co-operation with one least-developed sub-Saharan African state,

whereas Bulgaria intends to target African countries with which it had bilateral agreements
before 1989, such as Ghana,

whereas the Czech Republic targets Angola and Zambia, with Angola receiving 8 % (956 000 euro in
2007) and Zambia 4 % (775 000 euro in 2007) of allocated funds; whereas in Angola it funds
programmes in the sectors of agriculture and rural development and education and cross-cutting
programmes such as mine-clearance, strengthening public sector capacity and promoting civil society
and gender equality, as well as the environment; whereas in Zambia it funds programmes in the
health sector aimed at achieving MDGs such as reducing child mortality, improving maternal health
and combating HIV/AIDS and other diseases, targeting the Western province, which has a particularly
hostile natural environment,

whereas Hungary targets Ethiopia, and Poland targets mainly Angola and Tanzania,

whereas Slovakia targets Kenya, Sudan and Mozambique, the business and health sectors in Kenya,
and offers support for the use of renewable resources; whereas its development cooperation with
Sudan involves debt-reduction and targets technical infrastructure such as water management, and the
social sector, especially fostering primary education and basic healthcare,

whereas Slovenia intends to target Madagascar, Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Uganda and Malawi through
Slovenian non-governmental development organisations (NGDOs) and to assist local communities in
sectors such as infrastructure, education, water, sanitation and sustainable energy supply,

whereas in 2006 Lithuania initiated its first bilateral project in Mauritania (assistance with the devel-
opment of natural resources),

whereas in all the new Member States, a considerable share of development aid is channelled through
multilateral channels including the EU, and thus all those countries contribute indirectly to the devel-
opment of ACP countries,

Relationship between the new Member States and their neighbours

Z.

whereas the ENP is one of the top priorities of the EU's external relations, with the aim of promoting
good governance and economic development in its vicinity and thus decreasing political, economic
and social differences between the Member States and their neighbours,

AA. whereas the ENP Action Plans for the three South Caucasus States (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan)
were released on 14 November 2006, despite the fact that the inclusion of the South Caucasus coun-
tries in the ENP had initially been rejected in a footnote in the above-mentioned Commission
Communication on a wider Europe,

AB. whereas the Action Plans are supposed to be tailor-made for each country,

AC. whereas the EU traditionally favours a regional approach in its external relations,

AD. whereas the Georgian government expresses the hope that Georgia will be included in the Black Sea
region, with Ukraine and Moldova, rather than in the South Caucasus region, which has also been
acknowledged in the Action Plan,

AE. whereas the EU-Georgia Action Plan shows that EU is ready to offer some increased political support

to Georgia in the area of conflict resolution, which it had refused up until now,

C 66 E/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.3.2009

Thursday 13 March 2008

AF. whereas the new Member States were involved in developing the ENP before their membership of

the EU,

AG. whereas the new Member States did not have any influence on the Action Plans, nor were they

involved in decision-making and procedure before membership,

AH. whereas in order to sign up to the ENP, neighbouring countries have to have a contractual relation-
ship in force, such as a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement or an Association Agreement; thus
Belarus, Libya and Syria are excluded from the ENP because they do not have any contractual relation-
ship in force,

AI.

whereas the EU aims at a balanced bilateral and regional approach towards Central Asia,

AJ.

the relationship between Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,

whereas
the Russian Federation, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and the EU is based upon Partnership and Cooperation Agreements and
cooperation frameworks such as the BAKU initiative, as well as a variety of Common Security and
Foreign Policy instruments,

AK. whereas all the EU's neighbours,

irrespective of the issue of possible membership, have an equal
opportunity to establish privileged relationships with the EU that are founded on both common inter-
ests and common values, according to their own aspirations,

AL. whereas the main advantage of the Action Plans is to help the country in question to identify priori-

ties and to guide the EU's support for its efforts,

AM. whereas Bulgaria and Romania are already included in cross-border cooperation with relevant

ENP partners,

AN. whereas the new Member States' role in sharing the transition experience will be harnessed and will

contribute to expertise within the old Member States through the TAIEX and twinning programmes,

Raising public awareness

AO. whereas the current

the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) for raising public awareness of development issues totals
approximately 190 million euro, or 0,25 % of total ODA,

level of expenditure in most countries of

AP. whereas all the new Member States, with the exception of Poland and Malta, regard development

education as a priority for their NGDO national platforms,

AQ. whereas none of the new Member States has a national strategy for development education as yet,

AR. whereas only 12 % of OECD citizens have actually heard of the MDGs, 62 % of those who have heard
of the MDGs are not aware of what they mean, 17 % of European citizens do not know, in the light
of corruption and the perception that aid does not benefit the poor, whether aid makes a difference
(a figure which rises to 34 % in Portugal, 24 % in Italy, 23 % in Ireland and 22 % in Spain),

AS. whereas only 29 % of European citizens think that a reduction in extreme poverty and hunger will be
achieved by 2015, the most frequently cited obstacles being lack of money or resources (18 %), lack
of will (18 %) and the magnitude of the task ahead (14 %),

AT. whereas a United Nations Development Programme report has proposed that the Commission and
the Member States move towards or beyond a figure of 3 % of ODA as a minimum target for public
awareness raising and development education expenditure,

1.
Stresses that development policy is entirely part of the acquis communautaire and recalls the interna-
tional commitments of the new Member States in this field; underlines that the EU needs to support the
new Member States so as to assist them in integrating the acquis communautaire;

20.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66 E/45

2.
Considers that the ten new Member States subscribed to the European Consensus on Development
within a year of their accession, agreeing to implement an ambitious development paradigm and to work
towards achieving the MDGs within the set time-frame;

Thursday 13 March 2008

3.
Expresses its concern that many of the new Member States are not on course to meet the target
of 0,17 % of GNI to be spent on ODA by 2010, though some may see ODA fall in line with overall budget
cuts due to the need to reduce government debt;

4.
Stresses the experience of the new Member States, in particular during the transition process, and
considers that good governance and the promotion of democracy must be the priorities for the EU in devel-
opment cooperation matters; calls on the EU institutions to put to good use, in order to enrich its develop-
ment policy, the experience accumulated in the field by the new Member States;

5.
Considers that, due to an active cooperation policy, the new Member States will contribute to the
promotion of respect for fundamental rights and solidarity with the new generations in third countries
within the scope of the ENP;

Stresses the concrete benefit for the new Member States of participating in development cooperation

6.
policy, in particular in the areas of economic development and trade;

7. Welcomes the Commission's new approach of going beyond traditional development policies and
creating new partnership relations with developing countries;

8. Welcomes the fact that the international community is willing to accept the principle of ‘common
responsibility’ in the case of humanitarian urgency;

Suggests that the new and old Member States should work together more proactively within the EU to
9.
ensure that the situation in particular countries included in the ENP is monitored in a more timely fashion
so that the EU can react with greater flexibility in its policy towards these countries;

Stresses the link between development and migration, which is a major challenge for most of the

10.
new Member States which are at the external borders of the EU;

Recognises the progress made by the new Member States in their evolution from being aid recipient

11.
countries to becoming donor countries, and acknowledges the challenges that lie ahead;

Notes that the priorities of the new Member States after the transition period are determined by their
12.
historical relations and ties with their neighbours, and that the major part of the development cooperation
budget of the new Member States targets their immediate neighbours and the CIS countries; calls on the EU
to seize the occasion of the accession of the new Member States to reinforce its strategic presence in eastern
Europe, central Asia and the Caucasus as regions of the world hitherto less concerned by European aid but
which are nonetheless facing numerous development challenges;

13.
Stresses that effective action in the promotion of democracy and the rule of law, key fields of inter-
vention for the new Member States, is also a means of acting in the long term for poverty reduction, which
is a priority objective of EU development policy as fixed by the DCI;

14.
Recalls the Eastern dimension of EU external relations and considers that a new assembly of EU and
neighbouring countries (similar to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, the Euro-Mediterranean Part-
nership (Euromed) and the Parliamentary Assembly for EU-Latin America (Eurolat)) could build on historical
experience, boost the input of the new Member States in EU politics and help to co-shape the ENP and to
make neighbouring countries aware of new political fields;

C 66 E/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.3.2009

Thursday 13 March 2008

15.
Recognises that most Member States have departments within their Ministries of Foreign Affairs
dealing specifically with development cooperation, but nonetheless recommends that they strengthen coordi-
nation both within their own ministries and between each other and with other Member States to the extent
approved by national parliaments and local authorities in the decision-making process;

Recognises that building the relevant institutions and implementing policies is a time-consuming

16.
process;

Recognises that the biggest challenges for the new Member States in the coming years will be the

17.
increase in budgets and awareness-raising activities;

18. Welcomes the above-mentioned strategy framework ‘The European Consensus on Development: The
Contribution of Development Education and Awareness Raising’ and stresses that Parliament has an impor-
tant role to play in highlighting the actual and potential role of development education and awareness in
both formal and informal education in the new Member States;

19.
Considers that long-term projects which target partners and sectors where the new Member States
have a comparative advantage and can transfer experience are of optimal utility in the global poverty eradi-
cation process;

Calls for a division of labour between the Member States with regard to the added-value of each

20.
actor's input and with the objective of working together effectively;

21.
Believes that a large majority of the new Member States could give greater priority to their develop-
ment policy and furthermore ensure an approach to strategy planning with greater internal coordination
(with the exception of Lithuania, where the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the lead ministry for ODA planning
and management);

22.
States that the objective of the EU with regard to the new Member States is not only to capitalise on
their experience but also to help them strengthen their role as new donors; encourages, therefore, the old
and new Member States to decide jointly on a realistic calendar with a view to bringing the new Member
States into line with the EU's development aid objectives, while taking due account of both the potential and
the limits of the partnership between new and old Member States;

Stresses that the new Member States need to be fully included in the sharing of experience and in
23.
specific training in fields related to the programming, implementation and evaluation of development coop-
eration policy; recalls the different CBS (Capacity Building Scheme) experiences and calls for further
improvements, to put an end for instance to the turnover of civil servants;

24.
Recalls the importance of a permanent dialogue with officials responsible for the new Member States
and acceding or candidate countries; underlines the importance of EuropeAid's technical assistance in the
organisation of training courses, seminars, conferences and specific technical assistance to meet the needs
expressed by these countries; stresses the importance of the activities funded by the Directorate-General
Development of the Commission in this regard;

25.
Regrets the fact that the special working party on strengthening the new Member States' capacities
held no further meetings in 2007, even though the new Member States have a pressing need to increase
their development-cooperation capacities and the EU enlargement process is still under way;

Calls for that working party to be reactivated and for representatives of Parliament's Committee on
26.
Development (or its secretariat) and of Trialog (a project conducted in close cooperation with European
development NGOs) to be also involved in the working party's activities, and for the working party's remit
to be enlarged to include the new Member States' specific development-cooperation problems;

20.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66 E/47

Thursday 13 March 2008

27.
Stresses the importance of projects on ‘twinning’ and ‘light twinning’ in training the personnel of
new Member States through quality technical assistance, funds which only Hungary and Slovakia have called
for;

28.
Calls for bi-annual inter-parliamentary meetings between Parliament and the parliaments of the new
Member States focused on development and cooperation issues and the creation of a specific network in
this regard;

Believes that the participation of

29.
the new Member States in the European Development Fund
committee would bring an additional dimension to the debates and further help to build their technical
capacities;

Notes the lack of public recognition of development cooperation priorities in some of the new
30.
Member States and calls for an overall communication and education strategy to remedy this deficit; stresses
the importance of raising awareness of development issues in school curricula, as well as the role of the
media in creating public awareness and developing an international volunteer tradition;

Takes a positive view of the importance of a report on development education awareness raising and
31.
its role in the implementation of the European Consensus on Development, highlighting the actual and
potential role of development education and awareness raising in formal and informal education in Europe,
especially in the new Member States;

32.
Considers that the public in the new Member States is already aware of humanitarian aid issues, as
was demonstrated by their large-scale mobilisation over the 2004 tsunami — a starting-point for making
people aware of the need for specific longer-term commitments within an effective development policy;

Calls on the Commission to launch a specific awareness-raising campaign focusing on the compara-
33.
tive advantages and added value of the new Member States with regard to cooperation and development
issues;

Calls for greater coordination among the relevant national stakeholders and an appropriate involve-

34.
ment on the part of NGOs and local authorities in national policy-making processes;

Calls on the Commission to actively involve the new Member States in the preparation and negotia-

35.
tion of Action Plans, and in monitoring their implementation;

Notes that, by fully untying their development aid, the new Member States could be a positive

36.
example for all Member States;

37.
Notes that all Member States should set deadlines to untie their development aid, since in the long
term tied development aid neither serves good governance nor the efficient allocation of resources, nor does
it contribute to the goals of development cooperation;

38.
Notes that the links between the private sector and development cooperation constitute a promising
new avenue for the new Member States, and that a more active participation on the part of private under-
takings from those Member States in the procurement of development cooperation projects at EU level
could raise awareness of development cooperation;

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the govern-

39.
ments and parliaments of the Member States.

*

*

*