| Author (Person) | Crosbie, Judith |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.12, No.24, 22.6.06 |
| Publication Date | 22/06/2006 |
| Content Type | News |
|
Date: 22/06/06 A European Commission proposal to simplify and redefine its development policy has triggered a fierce debate over what development funds should be spent on and which of the EU institutions should decide how they are allocated. The Commission proposal, first put forward in September 2004, sought to streamline more than 30 policy instruments for development down to six. The Commission wanted to co-ordinate EU policies better so that they complement rather than undermine development policy. If development policy is to work properly, it has to take account of the wider EU policy context, the Commission argued. "For example if you don't have a thematic instrument on migration that can cover action between Mauritania, sub-Saharan countries, such as Senegal and Morocco, it will be very difficult to address trans-boundary issues of common interest like migration routes; this is necessary to complete what can be done on the basis of different frameworks such as the EDF [European Development Fund] for the ACP [Africa, Pacific and Caribbean states] and MEDA [EU-Mediterranean policy] for neighbourhood countries," says Stefano Manservisi, director-general of development at the Commission. But the European Parliament and non-governmental organisations are wary of the proposal, suspicious that the Commission and the Council of Ministers are trying to by-pass the Parliament. "Co-decision is not negotiable. Parliament fought for many years to get it and it is now enshrined in the Treaty," Irish centre-right MEP Gay Mitchell, who drafted Parliament's response to the Commission proposal, told his fellow MEPs. The Commission denies that it is taking powers away from the European Parliament. MEPs will, it says, have a say over development strategies but will not be allowed to micromanage programmes. MEPs and the Commission are also at loggerheads over whether policy on developing countries should be combined with policy on industrialising states, such as India and China. "We argue in favour of a specific instrument for the needs of the developing countries, namely poverty alleviation with true economic co- operation and sustainable development, and not just a default instrument for all countries not covered by any other instrument," said Mitchell. Mitchell's report was approved by MEPs in May, in what was Parliament's first reading of the Commission's re-organisation proposal (the development co-operation and economic co-operation instrument). It is already clear that, since the Parliament has co-decision powers on this legislation, the Commission will make concessions on decision-making and on a separation of development and economic co-operation. But there still appears to be a gulf between the two sides on the overall definition of development and what aid should be spent on. The Commission is clear that its new policy must be broadened to help countries tackle root problems in their societies. "What do you do in Colombia? If you don't fight against drug trafficking how far do you do development? That's the answer. The same is true in Afghanistan where also security issues should be addressed to allow development," Manservisi said. But Parliament and the non-governmental organistaions are adamant that development money should not be used for such purposes and that issues related to security, crime or immigration need to be funded separately by the EU. "This is a red line in the sense that there are definitions of development and they should be respected," said Simon Stocker, director of Eurostep. "We must fund activities which are based on the interests of developing countries such as poverty eradication...money for other issues needs to come from somewhere else." The Commission has warned that if no agreement is reached by the end of the year, although existing projects can be extended, new ones cannot be set up without a fresh legislative framework. "The current regulatory framework does not correspond to what we want to do," said Manservisi. "We don't speculate on a Plan B that does not exist because there is no Plan B." But those opposing the Commission's stance, particularly on what development aid should be used for, warn there will be little room for compromise. Stocker rejected the Commission's estimate that only 1% of money would be used for purposes other than official development assistance. If the proposal was passed in current form it would set a precedent and be the thin end of a wedge, he warned. Author says that the European Commission proposal of September 2004 to simplify and redefine its development policy triggered a fierce debate over what development funds should be spent on and which of the EU institutions should decide how they are allocated. |
|
| Source Link | http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Politics and International Relations |
| Countries / Regions | Europe |
