Proposition 51K3071

Proposition de résolution relative aux enseignements à tirer des évaluations de projets de développement.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Roel Deseyn
Ecolo Muriel Gerkens
MR Josée Lejeune
Open Vld Hilde Vautmans
PS | SP Sophie Pécriaux
Vooruit Maya Detiège

Submission date

April 12, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

resolution of parliament development aid

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Filip De Man (VB) voted to reject.
• Filip De Man (VB) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

April 26, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report.

It is a new resolution inspired by the terrain. It is another statement of colleagues who have been doing groundwork here.

Ms Vautmans has the word. Then came the ladies Detiège and Wiaux.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Minister, this proposal actually results from an evaluation made by the Court of Auditors of knowledge management within the Belgian Survival Fund.

As so often, Mr. Speaker, then we get a beautiful report on our banks, or sent home, on which the Court of Auditors has worked very hard for a year, with two or three people. I was surprised to see that there is little happening in this house. One of my proposals to improve the Rules of Procedure of the House, in the next legislature, if I can return, of course, will then be: systematically schedule the reports of the Court of Auditors in the competent committees. I think that the Court of Auditors, a body that works on behalf of us, Mr. Speaker, does a very good job, but that often too little attention is paid. Therefore, I asked the Chairman of the Working Group of the Belgian Survival Fund to bring the Working Group together and to discuss the report of the Court of Auditors in the Working Group of the Belgian Survival Fund.

We did this at the end of March, with the people of the Court of Auditors, with the NGOs and with our international partners. There were even people from New York to fly here. We worked hard for a whole Friday and we identified a number of pain points.

What did the Court of Auditors determine in its audit?

The first finding was that the Belgian Survival Fund actually evaluates most of its projects. This is of course a very good thing. What was the pain point, colleagues? That they did very little with those evaluations afterwards.

First, the relevance of a project was almost never questioned. One often looks at the content of the project, but one rarely meets. They rarely look at the quantity. One gives the example of the construction of a limited number of water wells that is considered relevant. Only 25% of the population has access to water. Therefore, a pain point can be determined.

Second, the evaluation reports actually do not pay much attention to the effectiveness and impact of the projects. What is the problem? One often evaluates but one rarely has a zero measurement. Rarely there is a measurement at the beginning. As a result, it is very difficult to see what has changed in the field.

Third, there is very little understanding of the sustainability of the projects. One starts a project and one evaluates it, but how does it look two or three years later? For example, I visited a water well in Niger. In the beginning, everything works very well. Over time, it can be seen that the population streams need to look inside and that the solar panels are not replaced. They do not have the money to replace the solar panels of the modern water well. In fact, therefore, it was even better with the water well from which the donkeys brought the water up.

Also the question – which is very important for the Belgian Survival Fund – whether the poorest are reached, because for that the Belgian Survival Fund was established by this house, colleagues, is almost never asked.

Then we also note that one evaluates point by point and project by project but that one subsequently does not project conclusions from one project onto the other project. It is clear what is good and bad about Project X and what needs to be changed. However, when setting up a similar project in another country, those assessments are not taken into account. In fact, cross-project learning is very little. Therefore, the Court of Auditors has made a number of concrete recommendations, which, of course, do not only concern the Belgian Survival Fund, but are actually extrapolable to the entire sector of development cooperation.

Therefore, together with the people who sit in the working group of the Belgian Survival Fund, we have decided to convert the recommendations of the Court of Auditors into a resolution and to ask the Government to take into account the good recommendations of the Court of Auditors for the functioning of our development cooperation. I am convinced that a lot of people want to give a lot of money to reach the poorest, but they want to be sure that the money is well spent and actually arrives on the spot.

(Different other conversations)

Mr. Speaker, if this is not the case here, that is sometimes really an unreal bordel.

Mijnheer Courtois, do not distract the government!

Colleagues, sorry, but this is the last session and I think the resolution we are discussing here is really very important. I hope that the Government will take the questions of this resolution and that one will truly learn across projects within development cooperation, not only for the Belgian Survival Fund, but for all projects of our development cooperation.

First of all, I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for providing us with information on this issue. I would also like to thank Ms. Vautmans who piloted the work. We will support this resolution proposal which will, I hope, allow to draw out the best possible solutions for implementing development projects.

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased with the enthusiasm of Mrs. Vautmans and her kordate attitude in the plenary session. We have been together in Niger with the Belgian Survival Fund almost two years ago. I was very pleased that the conclusions formulated by the Court of Auditors were consistent with what we had seen on the ground.

We questioned a number of things. I give a few examples. It was about AIDS prevention and teenage pregnancies. Why is there still insufficient information? This is because it is often about written texts and the information is often not visual. We also found that there were very few condoms available. We have also seen that girls often quickly disappear from school or do not meet enough with the boys. More cooperation with neighboring countries for, for example, vaccinations would also be a good thing. Often there is a great lack of confidence. At the border with Niger, we also experienced this conflict.

A good conclusion of the Court of Auditors I also found that more account should be taken of population groups that are now excluded in certain analyses due to age, gender, disability, ethnic origin.

Another issue was access to basic services. We have seen that good systems such as Veterinarians Without Borders could reach farmers. In terms of health care, however, it was very difficult to reach women. Before giving birth, for example, they find it very difficult to get into the health centers.

A final conclusion is that in many countries a number of power structures function side by side. One has the traditional chefs, the unelected state structures, the newly elected municipalities and civil society. If one wants to conduct a good policy in those countries, it is important that one develops a strategy to reconcile the four structures.

Therefore, I am very pleased with the resolution and the work done in the committees.

I recall that in 1996 or 1997 I was on an evaluation mission to Uganda with Secretary of State Moreels. I learned a lot from it, as well as from the about 30 trips I made to Zaire, now Congo.