Docstoc

EU NEWS

Document Sample
EU NEWS Powered By Docstoc
					                                      EU NEWS
ISSUE 6                                                                              December 2010

Content:

EU Development Policy
-   EU Commissioner Piebalgs proposes development policy focus on “inclusive growth”
-   EU External Action Service and new DG DevCo to begin work on 1 January
-   Mutual Accountability and Transparency: EC and Member States committed to concrete action
-   Next EU Multi-annual Financial framework, the debate is launched
EU Sectoral Policies
-   Cancun Climate talks kick the process forward but many key questions are still to be answered
-   Trade, Growth and World Affairs : EC communication on a new EU trade policy
-   EC proposals for the reform of the CAP overlook global food security risks
-   Civil Society policy dialogue on migration and development
EU Humanitarian Aid Policy
-   Adoption of the Mid-Term Review of the European Humanitarian Consensus Action Plan
-   Another step taken towards the creation of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps
EU relations with third countries
-   Africa - EU: a low key Summit in Tripoli
-   CSO networks urge the EU to respond to human rights situation in Honduras
-   EU trade agreements with Latin American countries and the dairy sector
EU Funding for Development
-   EU - Civil Society Structured Dialogue: wrapping up and future stages
News from the Networks
- APRODEV
- CIDSE
- Caritas Europa


                               EU DEVELOPMENT POLICY

EU Commissioner Piebalgs proposes development policy focus on “inclusive
growth”
On 10 November, the European Commission issued a Green Paper entitled, “EU development policy
in support of inclusive growth and sustainable development: increasing the impact of EU development
policy,” for consultation until 17 January. The paper was originally conceived as launching a process
eventually leading to the revision of the 2005 EU Development Consensus. However, a full review is
looking less likely at this stage, possibly still a partial revision. The next official step is a subsequent
communication on “modernizing EU development policy” planned for fall 2011.
The communication should be seen in the context of other, parallel EU policy reviews – e.g. EU 2020,
Energy 2020, and common agricultural, fisheries, and trade policies –, particularly in view of next
year‟s discussions on the EU Multi-Annual Financial Framework for the period beginning 2014. At


                                                                                                          1
global level, the debate coincides with the Seoul G20‟s “Development Consensus for Shared Growth,”
and with discussions on the Millennium Development Goals deadline of 2015, and on what is to follow.
The paper includes many questions on a broad range of issues, but has four areas of focus:
1. “High-impact development policy” – in particular, defining a limited number of priorities, for which
there is a strong argument of EU added value, and demonstrating “value for money”.
2. Catalyst for “inclusive and sustainable growth” – in particular, establishing “Joint Strategies for
Inclusive Growth with partner countries, with an emphasis on involvement of the private sector
3. Sustainable development and clean energy – in particular, establishing “Joint Programmes for
Sustainable Energy with partner countries, with an emphasis on renewable energy for electricity
4. Agriculture and food security – in particular, cooperation with non-EU donors and international
institutions in a value chain approach
Growth and development are inextricably connected, and this is not a new debate. However, what is
new is a changed global context, particularly the financial, climate, and food crises. An essential
                                                                                                      st
question is therefore, what kind of growth, and what kind of development is needed for the 21
century?

Global crises tell us that imbalances in wealth, in carbon-intensive consumption, in power and influence, and in
responsibility for risk must be addressed. We must move away from models of production and
consumerism that degrade the environment and fail to bring human fulfilment. We need a new,
democratic global green economy that works in favour of equity, the common good and human
well-being.
There is clear evidence to date that in too many cases, growth has failed to deliver the expected
gains to the poorest, or in some cases has harmed countries‟ development in other ways. Moreover,
the emphasis on inclusive growth is not linked to a strong discourse on empowerment and the need
for accompanying measures to tackle inequality as a vital factor in ensuring that wealth is fairly
distributed.
A policy for “inclusive, sustainable growth” can only succeed if there are fundamental changes in other
key EU policies – tax, investment, agriculture, trade, climate – fulfilling the EU Treaty obligation on
policy coherence for development. For this to occur, greater capacity is needed in the Commission‟s
Development Directorate-General to track and influence relevant policymaking.

Otherwise a policy for growth could end up mainly subsidizing EU interests (e.g. market and
investment benefits for EU companies; access to raw material, land and natural resources – See
article on EU Trade Policy). In light of this risk, any “partnerships for sustainable growth” would
require a multi-stakeholder approach to set the rules of the game from the beginning, e.g. clarifying
objectives and means to ensure pro-poor growth, and conditions for transparency in agreements
between governments and private sector.
CONCORD “Narrative on Development” argues that a sustainable EU international development
framework should support people, by addressing the causes of poverty including inequality, and building an
environment that is conducive to the realization of human rights.

Several CIDSE members have recently published papers on growth and development. Among these:
CAFOD, Wholly Living, October 2010, and Center of Concern, Seeing the World Anew, May 2010.
At the European Development Days on 6 December, CIDSE together with CONCORD, Oxfam and
ONE co-organized with the European Commission a high-level panel debate with Commissioner
Piebalgs on “New Policy Challenges,” including pro-poor growth, policy coherence for development,
and extra resources for development. See: Video of the debate and NGO co-organizers‟ key
messages.

EU External Action Service and new DG DevCo to begin work on 1 January
The New Year will consecrate the EU‟s new foreign policy and development departments. The EEAS
will consist of 1,500 officials, with most coming from the former DG External Relations, and smaller
numbers coming from the Council Secretariat and EU Member States‟ diplomatic services. Roughly
100 officials from the country desks of former DG Development will be transferred into the
service.
The detailed structure of the new EEAS is still unclear. Among 12 senior appointments, development
experience is limited. Of note are Maciej Popowski, one of four deputy secretaries general, in charge
of Inter-Institutional Affairs, who spent 2 years as Director in DG Development; Christian Leffler,
Managing Director for the Americas, who spent 1 year as Deputy Director-General in DG
Development; and Nicholas Westcott, Managing Director for Africa, formerly Britain‟s ambassador to


                                                                                                              2
Ghana. The post of Managing Director for cross-cutting issues including human rights is still
vacant. Also, a new Foreign Policy Instruments Service, staffed by Commission officials but housed
alongside the EEAS, will manage EC programmes such as the Instrument for Stability, the crisis-
response facility set up in 2007.
The newly merged EuropeAid Development and Co-operation Directorate-General, or DG
DevCo, will have about 800 staff – around 600 from the EuropeAid Co-operation Office and around
200 from DG Development. Its Director-General will be Fokion Fotiadis, coming from DG
Development, who will finalize the DG‟s new structure for April. Potential changes include
consolidation of expertise on other EU policies impacting development, in the interests of policy
coherence for development, and higher priority for issues raised in the EC green paper on growth,
such as private sector investment, energy, agriculture, and “value for money”.
On 6 December, the EU Development Days provided one of the first occasions for a high-level,
public debate on the External Action Service, between a number of key actors. Pierre Vimont, the
top civil servant (Executive Secretary General) of the Service, acknowledged that the EAS had raised
many fears, but noted that aid had been an important historical motor of the EU, and that in his opinion
having development fully integrated within external action would be more effective. Former
Development Commissioner Louis Michel raised a risk for development in the fact that Commissioner
Piebalgs would no longer be responsible for the overall political dialogue with African, Caribbean, and
Pacific countries, as this will be High Representative Ashton‟s prerogative.
Views differed on the centrality of HR Ashton in development decision making: Louis Michel believed
that as she represents the political centre of the EU, much would depend upon her. Commissioner
Piebalgs shared his vision, whereby EU Development Ministers would hold political debates and agree
with HR Ashton on priorities in the Council, which the Commissioner and Pierre Vimont would then
implement. However Swedish Development Minister Gunilla Carlsson argued that the EU‟s
development leadership has the money and instruments, so should not wait for HR Ashton to take the
lead. Priorities could include focusing EC cooperation on a reduced number of countries, for
example the 49 Least Development Countries only. The EAS would be responsible for the overall
vision on where countries are going. Pierre Vimont implied that HR Ashton and Commissioner
Piebalgs are co-chairing the Development Council.
Swedish Minister Carlsson underlined the need for political accountability from the EAS on how they
are using the development tool in the context of other policies, as agriculture, migration, and trade
policies can have greater impact on countries than aid. Philomena Johnson of Caritas Ghana
asked for transparent reviews of negative impacts of all EU policies within a country. Toby
Vogel, a European Voice journalist, was sceptical about the ability of the EAS to ensure policy
coherence for development, and generally critical of a weak leadership and lack of clarity regarding
the set-up of the Service, in his view responsible for an absence of Europe from world affairs this
year. For Pierre Vimont, the EAS will bring some coherence, but mainly with security policy issues
such as piracy, for which it is responsible, as competencies for other policies such as trade are the
responsibility of the Commission.
Negotiations are underway on a Memorandum of Understanding between the EEAS and DG
DevCo, to clarify how cooperation will work between the two services. CONCORD will shortly release
a paper with its vision and recommendations for the mission and functioning of the two services, also
highlighting the issues of security & development and policy coherence for development. An
accompanying briefing will also be available.
See: Video of the high-level debate, and the helpful accompanying ECDPM briefing note

Mutual Accountability and Transparency: EC and Member States committed to
concrete action
At the Foreign Affairs Council meeting of 9 December, the Member States have agreed to define an
EU common approach to accountability and transparency practices, thereby delivering on
commitments of the Monterrey Consensus, the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action.
This new commitment will complement the EU Operational Framework on Aid Effectiveness that had
been adopted in November 2009. The conclusions are significantly stronger than the original proposed
text and commit EU Member States and the Commission to taking specific steps to improve the
transparency of EU aid.

Key elements of the Council conclusions include:
- Publicly disclose information on aid volume and allocation following the OECD/DAC Creditor
  Reporting System (CRS) standard format, ensuring that data is internationally comparable. The EU


                                                                                                      3
                                                                                                     1
    and its Member States will further explore the possibility of using Transparent Aid (TR AID) to
    ensure that information can be easily accessed, shared and, eventually, published.
-   Make available to partner countries disaggregated information on all relevant aid flows, so as to
    enable partner countries to report them in their national budget documents and thus facilitate
    transparency towards parliaments, civil society and citizens.
-   Make the EU Annual Report on Financing for Development a model of transparency
-   Encourage increased cooperation by international aid transparency initiatives, including IATI with
    the OECD/DAC, working towards a consensus on a common international standard.
-   Promote increased transparency as an issue of key priority in the multilateral development
    institutions, including the UN system and the development banks, as well as other partners we
    fund.

In response to the EC Communication on mutual accountability and transparency and in preparation
of the decision of the FAC, CONCORD had adopted a position paper; “EU Aid Transparency:
Stepping up to the challenge” available on request from K.sohet@aprodev.net.

Next EU Multi-annual Financial framework, the debate is launched
In the coming months, the EU institutions will enter into a new cycle of budget planning and
negotiations aiming at the adoption of the post 2013 EU Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF).
This exercise is of particular importance as it will lock-in the EU main policy priorities until 2020 and
maybe beyond. It is not only the EU budget and the instruments to implement it that are at stake but
more broadly the EU integration process and the future role of EU in a variety of policy areas including
external action and development.
Decisions are mainly in the hands of member states and will inevitably reflect their perception of
today‟s role of the European Union and their vision of economic, social or foreign and development
priorities. Considering the actual financial and economic climate in Europe and the widespread
decisions taken at national level to reduce public expenditures, a hard negotiation is to be expected in
which issues such as, the added value of EU action, differentiation amongst EC partner countries,
security and migration, EU economic interests and competition with emerging economies and value
for money will predominate.
One positive sign is the new impetus offered by the Lisbon Treaty in favour of a stronger role for
the EU at global level and on the international scene. EU external action will probably be a priority
area in the future and an increase of the budget allocated to it is foreseen. Key questions remain: what
kind of priorities and objectives will this increased budget be used for and what impact will it have on
development aid? And in the case a strong budget for development is maintained, which countries and
objectives will it benefit most, what will be the instruments to deliver it, and what will be the role of civil
society and NGOs in these instruments?
These are the type of questions that will be answered through the MFF negotiation process in the
coming two years and if EU NGOs want to make sure that the responses are the right ones, it is high
time for them to engage in the process at both EU and national level.

Several changes are expected for the next MFF. Part of them is related to the adoption procedure
and the format of the MFF which are set by the Lisbon Treaty. Contrary to the current Financial
Perspectives that were adopted in the form of an inter-institutional agreement between the Council,
the Parliament and the Commission, the MFF will take the form of a regulation adopted by the Council
(unanimity vote) after consent of the Parliament.

Other changes could concern the number and the content of the headings of the budget, the set of
delivery instruments, the mechanisms and instruments to provide flexibility for unforeseen
expenditure, the introduction of new mechanisms for raising EU own resources, etc. All issues that
were discussed during the EU Budget review launched by the European Commission in 2008. One of
the novelties proposed in the EC report on the review is to extend the duration of the MFF to 10 years
with a mid-term review after 5 years.




1
  TR AID is a web-based system currently used by the Commission that combines data from multiple sources and
provides easy access to comprehensive information so that the data can be used for reporting or decision-
making.

                                                                                                             4
CONCORD has put in place a task force under its Policy Forum and involving representatives
from all interested working groups to conduct the policy analysis and lobby and advocacy work along
the MMF negotiation process due to take place in the coming 3 years (by end of 2012 for the MFF as
such and by end of 2013 for the programming of delivery instruments). The task force is currently
preparing a background paper explaining the process and the main issues to be decided upon as well
as a principle paper outlining CONCORD basic position on a series of issues that will be discussed
during the process. These include the compliance with the Lisbon Treaty provisions, quantity of aid
and safeguarding ODA, policy coherence for development, climate change finance, budgetisation of
EDF, geographic versus thematic instruments and programmes, role and financing of civil society,
financing Common Foreign and Security policy and interference with development aid, link between
relief rehabilitation and development, cross-cutting issues,…

These issues are also integrated in one way or another in an on-line questionnaire on the future EU
external action that was launched on 29 November by the EC. Questions are rather restrictive and
oriented, reflecting worrying trends and offering limited possibilities for nuances and new ideas but it is
possible to add comments. A background paper and the questionnaire are available here; the deadline
for response is 31 January 2011.

The formal process of negotiations will start with the publication of the EC legislative proposal on the
                      st
MFF no later than 1 July 2011. In the meantime the European Parliament will prepare a resolution
on future EU policy priorities and the Council will adopt conclusions on the budget review. The two
institutions already set the tune of the future negotiations with a fierce discussion on the 2011 budget.
Until recently establishing the EU‟s budget for 2011 remained contingent on an agreement on the role
of the Parliament in the future multi-year budget planning decisions and in establishing new
mechanisms for EU own resources. Belgian Presidency and the EC did their best to find a way out of
the impasse and it seems that an agreement has finally been reached. The member states assuring
the EU presidency over the next two years have undertaken to involve the European Parliament
in the preparation of the forthcoming MFF which will be negotiated in parallel with the re-examination
of the EU‟s own resources.
For more information contact k.sohet@aprodev.net

                                  EU SECTORAL POLICIES
Cancun Climate talks kick the process forward but many key questions are still
to be answered
After two weeks of difficult negotiations, agreement was finally sealed early on Saturday morning 11
December. This set of decisions will lay way forward for the further talks over the next year on the way
to COP17 in Durban, South Africa.

The Cancun outcome is somewhat mixed as it falls short on answering the key questions on the future
of the Kyoto Protocol, ambition of mitigation action and sources and scale of climate finance. At the
same time it re-builds the trust to the multilateral process. On the positive note for example REDD
(Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), technology and adaptation
discussions moved forward and there was an agreement on the establishment of the new Climate
Fund. While at the same time the Fund‟s design is still to be worked out and it risks becoming an
empty shell as there has not been much progress on the sources and the scale of the finance
needs. Without climate finance, developing countries will not be able to pursue low carbon
development pathways or adapt to the catastrophic effects of climate change. In addition, for example
the progress captured on REDD may not materialize, the same goes with future progress on
technology.

Limiting global temperature below 2 °C target was one of the messages of the Copenhagen Accord.
However, the Cancun agreement fails to acknowledge the so called "gigaton" gap between the current
emission reduction pledges and what is needed in order to keep the rise in global temperature to no
more than the 2 °C target. The level of ambition is not enough and as the UNEP (UN Environment
                          [1]
Programme) recent report demonstrates; the pledges mark only 60 per cent of the way towards


[1]
 UNEP report: http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport/pdfs/The_EMISSIONS_GAP_REPORT.pdf.
We support those who call for warming to be limited to less that 1.5 °C.

                                                                                                              5
reaching the 2°C target. In other words, we will have to bridge that remaining 40 percent gap. At the
same time, the outcome provides no progress in clarifying emission reduction pledges or a process to
strengthen pledges so that the gap between what parties are willing to do and what reaching the 2 °C
target requires could be filled. On the positive note, the mitigation text includes notion of
historical responsibility of developed countries, so that they must take a lead in combating climate
change. Something development NGOs have been advocated for long time.

One of the most important issues debated in Cancun and left unresolved is the second commitment of
the Kyoto Protocol. Japan rugged the boat in the beginning of the Climate Change talks by stating that
it opposes a second commitment of the Kyoto Protocol. The Cancun agreement does not secure the
second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, but only a weak process forward. Even if the
decision was taken in South Africa, postponing the decision until the end of 2011 will almost ensure a
gap between the commitment periods.

Japan has not been left alone in the camp of the blockers of the progress. Also Russia has been
listed as one of the enemies of the Kyoto Protocol. The US, a country that has almost nothing to offer
in the international negotiations because of the stalemate in its internal legislation, has kept progress
on many negotiation areas in hostage because of its own interests. In addition, Canada has gained
several “fossil of the day” awards during the two weeks –and not in vain.

At the same time, India and China are prepared to be open with the world about what they are doing
to keep their emissions down. The least developed countries and small island states from their part
have fought for inclusion of the 1.5 °C goal in the outcome.

The EU has played a constructive role by engaging in dialogue with the blockers. But while they
were calling for environmental integrity, the EU did not manage to solve the problem of leftover
emission rights, or “hot air”, from the first Kyoto Protocol commitment period. They also presented a
bad proposal for forestry and land-use (i.e., LULUCF), which will create loopholes that will allow the
forestry sector to hide tones of increased emissions.

In all, it seems that the ghost of the Copenhagen Summit has been left behind. Despite, the shortfalls
of the agreement, the Parties strongly showed willingness to unite behind “the Cancun package” and
find a compromise for the sake of moving forward and saving the multilateral process.
We have quite some work to do on our way from Cancun to Durban and the urgency of climate crises
has not gone anywhere. Now we need a renewal of political will to drive these negotiations forward in
order to reach a fair and ambitious legally binding outcome. The agreement on mitigation underlines
that the rich countries must move first. The EU has to start from home by immediately improving its
emissions reduction target by adopting a unilateral EU move to 30% emissions reductions.
(by Aino Pennanen, directly from Cancun )

See also APRODEV lobby points for Cancun as well as Reactions by CIDSE members on Cancún
outcomes.

Trade, Growth and World Affairs : EC communication on a new EU trade policy
Fasten your seatbelts! Smart growth: fast forwarding into the future
“Faster growth” is presented as the overriding aim of the European economic policy in the new
Communication on „Trade, Growth and World Affairs‟. Along with over 300 other stakeholders,
APRODEV have made a submission on the direction of the new EU trade policy and EC reports on
submissions can be read here.

Despite these wide range inputs the new trade policy seems to indistinguishably mirror the interests of
the EU‟s business community on access to raw material and energy security, on effective market
access, on regulatory conversion, on access to public procurement and service markets, on inclusion
of investment liberalisation, IPR enforcement, and energy security for Europe.

Major challenges to European policies on how to balance trade, public service and finance sector, and
climate policies are not addressed. Financial market failures, private sector risk behaviour, companies
violating human rights and social responsibility are not mentioned.




                                                                                                       6
Growth that is not shared is dispensable
There are many and diverse voices that alert to growth that may or will grind to a halt. It is an illusion
to think that careful systems engineering can stabilise and harmonise present growth – or fasten
growth - while in fact, it pushes institutions of an entire economy towards the better life (faster growth)
which may or has already become the enemy of good life (sustained Earth and solidarity).

The outline of the new EU trade policy argues that completing outstanding trade deals would add over
one percentage point to the EU GDP. Debate on limits of GDP measures and the need to go beyond
GDP for measuring and steering towards good or balanced growth are absent. The Communication
says that around half of world trade now takes place between the affiliates of multinational enterprises
trading intermediate goods and services. Concerned voices may add that most of the profits and
benefits also stay between the affiliates of multinational companies, and have not found their way to
„trickling down‟ to people.

There is ample evidence that private sector and business development will not by itself deliver on
sustainable economic development or inclusive growth. For example, the government of India has
adopted draconian rules to restrict the activities of the private run microfinance sector and has gone
back to favouring state-run schemes instead. This shows that whenever there are claims of an
effective response by the private sector not controlled by government, results are mixed. Either
because tiny informal business are pushed into debt schemes run by formal economic actors or
because innovate scheme run by grassroots initiatives are upgraded to millions of micro-business and
subsequently fail to deliver. (See article Financial Times on „Cradle of microfinance rocked‟ from 12
December 2010).

For development and growth to serve people, accountability has to come from the people and be built
from the bottom up. Companies won‟t do that themselves, and business is about profit making not
about development – said the African IMF director at the Friends of Europe meeting on Joint Africa EU
Strategy on 26 September 2010.

What’s in the making in EU trade policy and what isn’t
Consultation with civil society: The Communication repeats that active and inclusive participation of
civil society is a fundamental part of DG Trade‟s policy making. While key concerns of private sector
and EU business community are put upfront in the Communication, priorities expressed by non-profit
civil society organisations in numerous submissions have not got into the „making‟ of the policies (See
for example, trade chapter in the CONCORD report „Spotlight on policy coherence‟ for development,
2009).

Set up of a group of eminent people: In the very moment where EU competence is aligned with EP
parliamentary control to close the previously existing gap and „normalise democratic procedures‟ for
EU trade policy, the European Commission suggest the setting up of an „opaque‟ group. Interestingly
                               2
this was proposed by ECIPE in its report to the new European Commission and Parliament „A
Modern Trade Policy for the European Union‟ in January 2010.

Undistorted supply of raw materials and energy: The EU depends more than any other economy
on supply of raw material to maintain it‟s highly integrated and value processing performance.
However, the Communication discredits developing countries for making use of export restrictions,
although they have the sovereign right to do so as stipulated in the UN Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights. It weakens the EU‟s credibility and role in the world when the Communication
states that restrictions placed on the supply of raw materials often cause serious damage to other
developing countries – when the quest is clearly to secure own access to raw material input. Stakes
and potential of conflicts and unfair competition on access to raw material are high. And developing
countries affirm their right and aspirations to add value and create jobs in their own countries.

Temporary movement of people: We read “Bringing in the most highly qualified people from around
the world is essential to enable our companies and our research centres to remain at the cutting edge
of innovation” in the Communication. While steps towards more open or circular migration is requested
for long time by development NGOs, there is no mentioning of the risk of brain drain According to the

2
    European Centre for International Political Economy (http://www.ecipe.org/)

                                                                                                         7
IOM; Africa is losing in excess of 20 000 skilled personal per year, a single biggest obstacle to Africa‟s
development. UN estimates that African countries spend more than 4 billion US Dollar a year
employing 100 000 Western technical experts. UNCTAD estimates that each African professional
migrate represents a loss of 184 US Dollar to Africa (African Agenda, Volume 13 No 5 2010, Africa‟s
loss of skilled labour to worsen).

Monitoring mechanism: The paper calls for stepping up efforts to enforce EU‟s rights under bilateral
and multilateral agreements. DG Trade will engage in monitoring compliance carefully, in regular
reporting on export restrictions and issuing of trade and investment reports; and to this extent, will
make use of EU market access teams in third countries composed of business community and EU
/Member State Embassies. But all of this is a one-way street monitoring exercise. Where is the
commitment to scrutiny the EU‟s own non-compliance to fairness in trade, to dumping, to pursue of EU
companies involved in corruption, in violation of cultural, social or economic rights, and to broader
commitments to policy coherence for development? While EU trade policies aggressively reach out to
tackle „behind the border barriers‟ and while EU migration policies de facto extent EU borders into third
counties‟ territories, EU compliance of its own business to corporate social responsibility stops back
home at its own harbour.

Inclusive and sustainable growth: No reference is made to developing economies being
characterised by a distinction of a two pillar economy, a formal and informal economy; the latter being
big but powerless, the former small but well organised and powerful. The importance of social
economy to sustainable economic development and lifting people out of poverty is essential. This has
also been outlined in a recent opinion of the EESC on Social Economy in Africa (26 May 2010, REX
302). This omission makes any claims of EU trade policy to contributing to inclusive growth and
poverty eradication suspicious and unfounded.

Written by Karin Ulmer, APRODEV Policy Officer Trade and Gender (k.ulmer@aprodev.net)

EC proposals for the reform of the CAP overlook global food security risks
Following a first consultation that took place earlier this year, the Commission issued on 18 November
2010 a Communication on "The Common Agriculture Policy towards 2020" which outlines options for
the future CAP.
The Commission takes for hypotheses that the CAP needs to anticipate the economic, environmental
and territorial challenges and be more sustainable, balanced, targeted, simpler, effective and
accountable. Faced with these key challenges, the Commission aims to improve current CAP
instruments and design new ones. This Communication launches the debate with the other institutions
and with stakeholders, starting with a consultation on the European Commission Impact Assessment
open until 25 January 2011. Legal proposals are expected in July 2011.
CONCORD reacted immediately to the Commission reform proposal highlighting its complete lack of
focus on the CAP‟s impact on the world‟s poorest. Development NGOs are particularly concerned by
the stated objective of the reformed CAP to “feed the world”. Global food security can only be
achieved if poor countries are enabled to develop and safeguard their own sustainable domestic
production. CONCORD considers it fundamental that all CAP payments should strictly match
European market demand and that production is managed in such a way which prevents dumping
exports to compete with local agricultural production of farmers in developing countries.
Caritas Europa joined this plea for the total elimination of all export subsidies and denounced the
current political way of putting specific economic interests before global justice and the fundamental
right to food for all.
See also APRODEV discussion paper on the CAP and Commentary on the CAP reform.

Civil Society policy dialogue on migration and development
Eunomad, a young European network on migration and development, gathered representatives of EU
institutions, including the Commission and the Parliament, and civil society organisations involved in
migration and development action, at a policy seminar entitled "Migrations and development: Which
articulation between the European policies and the civil society's practices?", held on 29 November in
Brussels. The seminar explored two particular questions:
1) How to link migration and development nexus with European policies?


                                                                                                        8
2) Policy coherence between the migrations-development nexus and migrants‟ integration in Europe.
Throughout the day, the complexity of the interaction between migration and development was
investigated, including the dominant trend in Europe of a strong resistance of specific territorial
interests, in which migrants are primarily viewed as labour force.

Daniel Verger of Secours Catholique participated in the seminar and presented Caritas Europa‟s
analysis and recommendations on the dynamics between migration and development. For Caritas
Europa, migrants are primarily people with rights; migration must be a safe option, and not the last-
resort solution imposed on people to save their lives, flee poverty, conflict or injustices. In this context,
the focus of development policies should be on eradicating the root causes of forced migration and
identifying positive synergies, rather than contributing to migration flow control. Caritas Europa
particularly insists on the need to strengthen the coherence of migration policies with development
objectives, as foreseen in the Lisbon Treaty.

The following day, Eunomad organized a seminar for the European networks of civil society involved
in migration, development and human rights, in which Caritas and CONCORD participated, in order to
explore synergies and future cooperation. The group agreed to continue this dialogue in the
perspective of the preparation of the future EC Communication on migration and development, due in
the first half of 2011.



                           EU HUMANITARIAN AID POLICY

Adoption of the Mid-Term Review of the European Humanitarian Consensus
Action Plan
The mid-term review of the action plan of the European humanitarian consensus was conducted by
the European Commission all throughout the year, including consultations of civil society and other
actors. On 8 December, the European Commission published a Communication which presents
overall progress on the Action Plan so far, updates the priorities and gives suggestions for areas
where there is scope for further effort.

The European Humanitarian Consensus, adopted in 2007, is a comprehensive policy framework that
reaffirms the EU‟s commitment to upholding and promoting fundamental humanitarian principles and
to advocating for respect of International Law. It also sets out the standards and principles for the use
of civil protection resources and military assets in the EU's response to humanitarian crises. In 2008,
the European Commission presented a five-year Action Plan with practical measures to implement the
Consensus.

According to the outcomes of the Commission‟s Mid-Term Review over the past three years, there has
been good progress on the implementation of the Action Plan such as rapid responses to sudden
crisis, EU coordination, EU‟s engagement with humanitarian partners, EU‟s voice and collective
impact in the international arena. But for further implementation, there is a need for a share of
responsibility for success, a division of labour, a regular monitoring of implementation of Consensus
Commitments, a proactive dialogue between EU donors and partners, a reinforced advocacy to
promote the international humanitarian law and a partnership with a diverse range of actors to cover
all aspects of humanitarian crisis.

The humanitarian NGO sector, including Caritas, has been very supportive of the Consensus.
According to VOICE, the European platform of humanitarian NGOs, Member States have not
achieved enough progress in implementing the Action Plan and accountability between donors, NGOs
and the beneficiaries must be improved. VOICE also pointed out that more attention is needed for
ensuring respect for humanitarian principles in the context of increasing demand for EU visibility,
increasing the dialogue between humanitarian and military actors on their differing mandates and
roles, better integrating Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR ) and capacity building of local partners, as well
as supporting effective LRRD.
The European Parliament is also contributing with an own-initiative report by Michèle Striffler, the MEP
standing rapporteur on humanitarian aid, that should be adopted in Plenary in January 2011.



                                                                                                           9
Another step taken towards the creation of a European Voluntary Humanitarian
Aid Corps
The European Commission adopted on 23 November 2010 a Communication to set up the European
Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps, as foreseen by the Treaty of Lisbon. According to the Commission,
“the Corps will enable Europeans to express their commitment to our solidarity, and to work together
as citizens of the EU. By helping people affected by disasters, we have the opportunity to contribute to
a more cohesive European society."

The Commission will formally launch an open consultation by the end of the year. The Commission
also plans to carry out an impact assessment of the cost-effectiveness and social impact of the areas
in which the Corps can act. In 2011, the European Year of Volunteering, the Commission will set up
pilot actions to test some of the ideas identified so far. A legislative proposal is envisaged for the year
after.
During previous consultation opportunities, VOICE, the European platform of humanitarian NGOs,
stressed the professionalism of the sector and the need for clear and realistic objectives and
necessary additional funding of the EVHAC, which should answer identified needs and not visibility
purposes. More specifically, VOICE recommends that the EVHAC is deployed on a case-by-case
basis (taking into account security risks) and does not detract from the focus on local capacity building
or compromise existing volunteering programmes.



                   EU RELATIONS WITH THIRD COUNTRIES

Africa - EU: a low key Summit in Tripoli
80 European and African Heads of State and Government had been invited to convene in Tripoli for a
two day summit under the overarching theme “Investment, Economic Growth and Job Creation” with
the aim to bring the cooperation between the two continents to a new, more ambitious level.
Unfortunately many heads of states from both continents declined the invitation and/or sent ministers
instead. The absence of Mrs. Ashton, EU High representative and of Mr. Karl de Gucht, Trade
Commissioner, was also noticeable. Many key issues were not discussed and the Summit essentially
                                                    nd
delivered a political declaration and endorsed the 2 plan of action for the years 2011-2013.

At the end of his opening speech, Jean Ping, Chairperson of the African Union Commission had
reminded the assembly that several issues, particularly those concerning the financing and adapting of
existing financial instruments to the joint strategy were yet to be addressed. If responses to these
fundamental issues are not found, this Tripoli Summit will achieve rather limited results.
Similarly, a political decision should be made on the establishment of the Pan-African fund or the
“Africa’s Integration Facility”. There is also a need to consider the need for coherence and
harmonisation between the work of our respective experts and policy statements, so as to
permanently remove obstacles like that of EPAs, which is a vital issue to be resolved without delay for
mutual interest.
We should also say that we fervently hope that the two Parties will commit to restoring a balance
between the political and development dimensions in pursuing the implementation of the common
strategy, much still remains to be done in the field of development.”
There is little evidence that his concerns were seriously addressed.

Still, President of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso closed the third EU-Africa Summit on a very
optimistic note: This was a substantial Summit. When I compare it with other meetings we had in the
past, this meeting was much more informal. The political atmosphere and dialogue have improved
between Africans and Europeans. And we now have a joint programme with concrete targets and
concrete goals.
Listening to Mr Barroso, one would have expected more interest and attention from the media and
political circles in Europe and Africa for this Summit. It was not the case and the gap between the
discourse and the potential of the EU-Africa partnership and the reality of its implementation suffering
from lack of ownership, leadership and trust is not very encouraging for the future. The Summit didn‟t
provide the new political impulsion that is dramatically needed in EU-Africa relationships.




                                                                                                        10
Not surprisingly considering the main topic on the agenda, the Tripoli declaration contains several
reference to economic growth, trade and private sector as main engines for the realisation of the
MDGs: “To flourish,(this) private investment needs, a transparent and well–governed business
environment, partnerships with the public sector, better productivity, social protection of workers both
in formal and informal economies, together with reinforced efforts of education and technology transfer
in order to promote a knowledge based Society. We recognize the equally important dimension of
regional integration for growth and development and commit to conclude Economic Partnership
Agreements (EPAs) that support socio-economic development, regional integration and the integration
of Africa into the global economy. (…)
We consider that all available financing for development, both domestic and external,
traditional as well as innovative, need to support sustainable economic growth and
employment in Africa which are key for achieving the MDGs. (…)”

In addition, the Summit was preceded by an EU-Africa Business Forum in the presence of both
Commissioner Piebalgs (Development) and Tajani (Industry and entrepreneurship) that brought
together about 200 business leaders around the issue of "Economic Growth: The private sector, A
critical partner," referring to linking markets, facilitating business activity, green economy and the role
of the private sector in meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Security, another key aspect of the EU-Africa partnership has a prominent place in the declaration
including the support to African led peace operation and a full-fledged African Peace and Security
Architecture and more detailed statements on Somalia and Sudan. The fight against terrorism, piracy,
toxic waste, trafficking including of humans and maritime security are also part of the joint
commitments.

The two parties also reiterate their commitments in favour of human rights, gender equality, good
governance and the rule of law and emphasize the need to strengthen national legal systems and the
international cooperation in the pursuit of justice, peace and reconciliation, including the prosecution of
the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, taking into cognizance the
positions of the African and the European Union.
Note that two days after the Summit, The Peace and Security Council of the African Union (PSC) has
urged the International Criminal Court (ICC) to defer its arrest warrant against Sudanese President
Omar Hassan al-Bashir (read more).

Africa and the EU will also work together to ensure more effective participation and improved
cooperation in international bodies, including the United Nations General Assembly, and the G20.
This aspect of partnership needs a lot of improvement and reflects the weaknesses of the EU-Africa
political dialogue. Best example is provided with Climate Change, the EU and Africa have adopted
different positions at the 2009 summit in Copenhagen and did not manage again in Tripoli to agree on
a joint statement for this year‟s UN climate talks in Cancun. Major differences exist as well on other
crucial issues such as migration, Human rights, ICC jurisdiction, cultural goods, etc.

Civil society had a short slot of 5 minutes during the Summit to present a communiqué adopted
at the Cairo EU-Africa Civil Society Forum that took place from 8 to 10 November (more on the Forum
and communiqué here).

Official website of the JAES: http://www.africa-eu-partnership.org/
Independent website with articles and comments on the JAES and the Tripoli Summit:
http://europafrica.net/
EC communication prepared in view of the Summit.

CSO networks urge the EU to respond to human rights situation in Honduras
Over the recent months, the civil society networks ALOP, APRODEV, CIDSE, CIFCA, FIAN
International, Grupo SUR and OXFAM have engaged in a discussion with the European Commission
regarding EU development cooperation in Honduras. In a letter on October 5, the networks raised
serious concerns regarding the human rights situation in Honduras and urged the EU to take concrete
actions to improve the situation. The networks expressed concerned that, while the human rights
situation in Honduras continues to be very serious and the country is far from attaining a state of
normality, the EU has not significantly changed its development cooperation policy towards the
country.

                                                                                                        11
Since the coup d‟état on 28 June 2009 and the taking office of the Government of Porfirio Lobo Soza
in January 2010 there has been an increase in threats, harassment and killings of human rights
defenders, social leaders, journalists and members of the National Popular Resistance. Violent
repression, including arbitrary detention of opposition protestors, has continued. The problem of
impunity is immense and institutions responsible for ensuring that victims of human rights violations
have access to effective resources have openly acted in contravention of their mandates. Measures
taken by the Government of Honduras in relation to human rights have been insufficient.

The letter exchange that has followed has focused particularly on the EC Programme of Support to the
Security Sector (PASS) with planned support of 44 million euro. The CSO networks have expressed
concern that this programme is directed at some of the institutions directly involved in the coup and
responsible for human rights violations remaining impune, and have also urged the EU to strengthen
its support of the work of human rights organisations in Honduras and to guarantee wide participation
of civil society in its own development projects and programmes.

The exchange of letters between CSO networks and the EC can be consulted here.
For more information on the EC development cooperation programmes with Honduras, see the result
of the Mid Term Review of the Country Strategy Paper 2007-13:
http://eeas.europa.eu/honduras/docs/2010_midterm_honduras_annex_en.pdf
Summary: http://eeas.europa.eu/honduras/docs/2010_midterm_honduras_summary_en.pdf
For more information, please contact Annelie Andersson, APRODEV: a.andersson@aprodev.net

EU trade agreements with Latin American countries and the dairy sector
APRODEV, ALOP and Grupo SUR, with the support from Iniciativa CID and RedGE, have elaborated
a brief report – "The European Union is the big cheese" - on the results of the negotiations for an EU-
Central America Association Agreement and an EU - Colombia / Peru Free Trade Agreement for the
dairy sector. The Brief shows the assymetries between the dairy sectors in the regions and analyses
the possible impacts that these agreements could have on this sector in Central America, Peru and
Colombia.
In English: http://www.aprodev.eu/files/Central_America/201007_dairy_and_aa_eu_la.pdf
In Spanish: http://www.aprodev.eu/files/Central_America/201007_la_mala_leche_de_la_ue_esp.pdf



                         EU FUNDING FOR DEVELOPMENT

EU - Civil Society Structured Dialogue: wrapping up and future stages
The structured dialogue between EU institutions and civil society organisations and local authorities
active in development is now entering in a critical phase with the wrapping up and conclusion of the
work on theme 1 (the roles and added value of CSOs and LA in external cooperation) and theme 2
(complementarity and coherence within the aid effectiveness agenda) and the start of dialogue on
theme 3 dedicated to aid delivery and selection mechanisms.
A draft paper collecting the synthesis of discussions, preliminary conclusions and preliminary
recommendations from working groups 1 and 2 is posted on the CISOCH website for consultation until
25 January. (See here)
The paper reflects quite well the richness of the discussions that took place in the two working groups
as well as the inputs that were made on paper and forms a good basis for a final outcome to be
                                                             rd
discussed in a last working session for WG1 and 2 on the 3 March 2011. Two more working sessions
                                                                                th
on the WG 3 issues will take place on the 26th & 27th of January and on the 4 of March.
Finally, by the end of March 2011, an issue paper including WG3 discussions will be produced as the
main preparatory document for the final conference of the Structured Dialogue that will be co-
organized with the forthcoming Hungarian Presidency of the EU on the 5th-7th of May in Budapest.
This Final Conference shall be the opportunity for all stakeholders to endorse the final document of the
Structured Dialogue. In addition and following Bamako, Asuncion and New Delhi, Baku in Azerbaijan
will host in February 2011 the last regional workshop for dialogue with CSOs and LA from developing
countries.




                                                                                                     12
A so-called „process‟ meeting on the Structured Dialogue was organised during the European
Development Days to assess the progress of the process since its inception; to present the draft
synthesis document of Working Groups 1 & 2 and the state of play of Working Group 3; to present the
activities planned until the Budapest Conference and to exchange views on the process and possible
final outcomes.
More information on the structured dialogue is available here.



                            NEWS FROM THE NETWORKS
NEWS FROM APRODEV
New Director at ICCO: Marinus Verweij (52) has been appointed as of 1 November new chairman of
the Executive Board of ICCO. He will learn the ropes in the course of November and December from
Jack van Ham, the current Chairman of the Executive Board who will be leaving the organisation on 1
January 2011.
Previously, Marinus Verweij was the director of the Dutch Centre for Health Assets, which takes on
tasks for the government relating to the quality of buildings and the development of innovations in the
healthcare sector. As the chairman of Prisma, an umbrella association of Christian development
organisations, also a member of the ICCO Alliance, Mr. Verweij is already familiar with ICCO.
More here.

NEWS FROM CIDSE
Ahead of the 11-12 November G20 meeting in Seoul, CIDSE welcomed the fact that the G20 will
look specifically at development issues. CIDSE‟s statement underlined the need to: 1) Focus on the
needs of small farmers and businesses when deciding policy choices and spending priorities; 2)
Regulate foreign direct investment and multinationals so that they do not undermine inclusive and
sustainable development; and 3) Implement policies and mechanisms that support global economic
stability and are conducive to the trade, finance and investment prospects of developing countries.

New staff at CIDSE secretariat: The CIDSE Secretariat has said farewell to Cliona Sharkey, who
joined CIDSE Irish member Trócaire as climate justice officer. Astrid Schwietering, formerly CIDSE‟s
climate campaign officer, succeeds Cliona. In January, Gisele Henriques will join CIDSE as policy
officer for food, agriculture and sustainable trade. Gisele comes to CIDSE from our UK member
CAFOD‟s office in Timor Leste, where she was working with local partners on food security issues.
CIDSE also welcomes Catherine Durban as assistant for these two advocacy areas, succeeding
Grainne Delaney who has returned to work for MEP Gay Mitchell, as well as Chiara Martinelli, joining
CIDSE from our Italian member FOCSIV as assistant to the Secretary General, succeeding Anissa
Garcia.

NEWS FROM CARITAS EUROPA
Closing of Caritas Europa Zero Poverty Campaign: On 8 December, Caritas Europa handed over
the Belgian Presidency 130,000 signatures collected from across Europe, denouncing the scandal of
poverty. These signatures were collected as part of the yearlong Europe-wide campaign conducted by
the 48 European Caritas organisations.

Caritas Internationalis Secretary General speaking at the European Development Days 2011:
On the occasion of the EDD opening session on 6 December, Lesley-Anne Knight, as Ambassador of
the European Year 2010 against poverty, shared the floor with Belgium‟s Prime Minister Yves
Letterme, European Commission President Joao Manuel Barroso, European Parliament President
Jerzy Buzek, IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Nepal‟s Prime Minister Madhav
Kumar. Starting her speech with a clear reminder of Caritas‟ preferential option for the poor, Ms.
Knight talked about the dire reality in which the have-nots are living across the world. Reminding that
the roots of poverty are "fed by political and economic choices in both North and South," Ms. Knight
encouraged the EU to address the impact of some EU policies on poverty in developing countries,
notably the impact of EU agricultural subsidies on hunger and food insecurity.




                                                                                                     13
EU News Editors:             Karine Sohet, APRODEV (k.Sohet@aprodev.net)
                             Denise Auclair, CIDSE (auclair@cidse.org)
                             Blandine Bouniol, Caritas Europa (bbouniol@caritas-europa.org )

APRODEV is the association of the 17 major development and humanitarian aid organisations in Europe, which work
closely together with the World Council of Churches. APRODEV agencies engage in many kinds of activities related to
development cooperation: relief, rehabilitation and development activities, capacity building, research, awareness raising and
campaigning, education and advocacy. http://www.aprodev.net/main - 28 Boulevard Charlemagne, B-1000 Brussels,
Belgium – Tel : +32 2 234 56 60

CIDSE is an international alliance of Catholic development agencies in Europe and North America. Its members share a
common strategy in their efforts to eradicate poverty and establish global justice. CIDSE’s advocacy work covers global
governance, resources for development, climate change, trade & food security, EU development policy and business &
human rights. http://www.cidse.org - 16 rue Stévin, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium – Tel: +32 2 230 77 22

Caritas Europa, one of the 7 regions of Caritas Internationalis, is the European network of 48 Caritas member organisations,
working in 44 European countries. Caritas Europa focuses its activities on policy issues related to poverty and social
inequality, migration and asylum within all countries of Europe, and issues of emergency humanitarian assistance,
international development and peace throughout the world. With regard to all these issues, the organisation develops policies
for political advocacy and lobbying at European level and at national level. http://www.caritas-europa.org - 4 Rue De
Pascale, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium – Tel: +32 2 280 02 80




                                                                                                                          14

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:11/4/2011
language:French
pages:14