Proposition 52K2054

Projet de loi abrogeant la loi du 9 février 1999 portant création du Fonds belge de survie et créant un Fonds belge pour la Sécurité alimentaire.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Roel Deseyn
Ecolo Muriel Gerkens
LE Georges Dallemagne
LDD Robert Van de Velde
MR Kattrin Jadin
Open Vld Hilde Vautmans
PS | SP Patrick Moriau
Vooruit David Geerts

Submission date

June 18, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

development aid food aid

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit

Party dissidents ¶

• Francis Van den Eynde (VB) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

Dec. 3, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

This bill was discussed at the meeting of the committee on 28 October. The proposal replaces the old law of 9 February 1999 establishing a Belgian Survival Fund by a new law establishing a Belgian Fund for Food Security. It better describes the intended objective and the different powers. The aim is to improve the food security of the vulnerable populations in the partner countries of Belgian development cooperation. The bill emphasizes the fight against food insecurity even more than before.

In an introductory presentation, Mr. Moriau, co-contributor of the bill, explained the strengths. The speaker pointed out that the strengths are the subject of consensus and that there has also been extensive consultation with the Minister of Development Cooperation on this subject. He submitted a number of points related to the financing, on which several matters had yet to be clarified. Mr Moriau submitted three amendments. For the details, I refer to the written report.

During the discussion, Mr Van den Eynde of the Flemish Interest regretted that the proposal was signed by a large number of members from various parties, but that his party was excluded from this. Nevertheless, he believed that the reform of the regulation of the Belgian Survival Fund was urgent.

Ms. Vautmans of Open Vld emphasized that the BOF has always had a unique place in the development cooperation sector. She stressed that in the context of global warming and the fact that agriculture in the South needs exceptional aid, the weight of the BOF should not be underestimated. Although the previous funds were already heavily focused on food security and agricultural projects in difficult regions, this is even more the case with the new Belgian Fund for Food Security.

Mr Geerts van sp.a stated that everyone can agree with the great principles with which the previous funds worked, which was rightly ⁇ ined in the present bill. The speaker subsequently stated that the food problem is not only caused by food shortages, but that in some countries the most vulnerable groups also have difficulty accessing the available food. Therefore, Mr Geerts called for more regulation of the market. He also briefly stood still at the evaluation of the projects of the Second Fund. The speaker believed that the follow-up meetings ⁇ proved useful.

Mrs. Gerkens of Ecolo-Groen! considered that, in particular, the multidimensional approach and the contribution of various partners are fundamental for the proper operation of the Fund.

This requirement must be absolutely fulfilled in order to ⁇ food security for the most vulnerable, such as women and children, and respect for their fundamental rights. Following, Ms. Gerkens also commented on the project evaluations, which are fortunately very well embedded in the development cooperation sector. The bill continues on that momentum.

Another point he addressed was the geographical delimitation of the area of action. It focuses primarily on the most vulnerable zones, but at the same time leaves the possibility of covering other regions open. This is an important question for NGOs.

Mr Dallemagne, of cdH, was ⁇ satisfied with the present proposal. He recalled that the first fund came after the great famine in eastern Congo. With the Fund, Belgium assumes part of its responsibility for development cooperation and for the achievement of a dignified life. Taking into account the lessons learned from the past, the new bill aims to increase synergy and even more attention to the weakest groups in the most vulnerable areas. The new fund is better aligned with other instruments of development cooperation, both national and international.

As a final point, Mr Dallemagne remained silent on the fund funding. At the same time, the Fund should develop new initiatives and continue to fulfill commitments already made.

Mr Roel Deseyn considered it important to make the proposal in consultation with many stakeholders. However, it should not be overlooked that the consultation will also have to take place in the succession phase. Mr Deseyn submitted amendment number four, which aims to better define the geographical delimitation of projects.

In his replica, the Minister of Development Cooperation, Mr. Charles Michel, welcomed the good cooperation with the applicants of the bill. He hoped to continue working on this basis. The Minister shared many of the views expressed by the speakers, in particular on project evaluations.

Finally, the Minister went deeper into the central demand for funding of the Fund. He stated that the National Lottery will continue to honor its commitments under the existing BOF in the new fund. It is a total amount of 250 million euros. The Minister was well aware of the transitional period 2010-2011, which he would not lose sight of. He stressed that DGOS would release sufficient additional resources so that the Belgian Fund for Food Safety could start immediately. He proposed to fix €18,5 million each in 2010 and 2011, as proposed in the committee by Mr. Dallemagne.

The proposal was voted on 28 October. The entire bill was adopted, amended with the amendments, with 9 votes for and 4 abstentions.

The plenary session of 19 November returned the text of the bill as a result of the submission of a purely technical amendment no. 6 of Mr. Versnick. The amendment was adopted with 9 votes in favour and 2 abstentions.

Mrs Vautmans, Mr Moriau, Mrs Gerkens, Mrs Jadin, Mr Deseyn, Mr Geerts and Mr Van den Eynde are registered for the general discussion. First, I give the word to Mrs. Vautmans.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Open Vld is very pleased that the present bill is to be voted today. Over the past few days we have talked very often about the financial crisis and the banking crisis in our country and in the world. This proposal addresses another crisis, namely the crisis of food security. It is about people who do not know if they will have food the next day. Therefore, we are pleased that this parliamentary initiative is put to the vote today.

By the way, it is the third time. It started in Parliament. It is also now the result of an agreement in the parliamentary groups in consultation with the partners who implement it. We have a follow-up parliamentary working group in Parliament, which works very well.

I myself have had the honor of participating twice in a mission to visit concrete projects on site. I think that everyone who has participated in these transmissions is really impressed and convinced that the Belgian Survival Fund occupies a very special place in our development policy, which we must ⁇ continue to support and continue to work on.

An evaluation of the previous fund has been made. From this, a number of pain points have emerged. With the present bill, we have tried to resolve these pain points. For us, it is crucial that the BOF focuses on the areas where food insecurity prevails and that we set up projects to really help people get the food they need.

Open Vld will fully support the bill.

After months and months of discussions and negotiations, the bill establishing the new Belgian Fund for Food Safety (FBSA) can finally be presented to you.

As Chairman of the Working Group, I must tell you that I am very satisfied with the content and objectives of this text; I think my colleagues will do the same.

Indeed, the new Fund contains major improvements, but it truly specializes in fighting hunger in the world through structural projects aimed at food sovereignty.

As a specific fund, the FBSA has certain advantages over other instruments. It is based on various specificities, the assembly of which provides added value in the pursuit of the objectives to be achieved.

First, as Ms Vautmans said, the choice made by the Belgian Food Safety Fund to target especially the most fragile areas facing a significant food insecurity gives it a strong added value. Then, the multi-dimensional approach of the Belgian Fund for Food Security allows to deploy synergies between the various dimensions to which the most fragile are sensitive: political, economic, human, socio-cultural dimensions. Finally, capacity-building of institutional actors and civil society has a strong added value in terms of coherence and sustainability of interventions.

Unlike other programmes, the Belgian Food Safety Fund has the advantage of working with various types of partners, both in the North and in the South. Partners in the North are represented by the Belgian Technical Cooperation, multilateral organizations, FIDA, UNICEF, FAO and non-governmental organizations. There is unanimous consensus to say that such a group of partners brings significant added value in the different stages of their action. The experience thus gathered and the diversity of partners constitute a very rich background.

Stimulating partnership between local actors in the South, public authorities, local communities and local NGOs is also one of the goals pursued. Working through partnerships is an important part of the participatory approach by which beneficiaries reach a strong appropriation of activities.

This approach gives the program a much broader social foundation. Unlike other programmes, the Belgian Food Safety Fund enables structural work. The FBSA’s spending rate offers the possibility to carry out projects over ten or twelve years; this is necessary to be able to actually work on the structural causes of food insecurity. They have a very real and strong link with social, economic, political, ecological, cultural and technical difficulties.

In short, through the financing of multisectorial projects, the FBSA has as its ultimate goal to address the very basis of the food problem by opting for a sustainable aid policy that extends over the long term.

Projects supported by the Fund cover various areas ranging from the development of agricultural production to water supply.

I would like to open here a parenthesis on the problem of water because it is, without a doubt, the biggest challenge we will have to face in the coming years. While water covers 70% of the planet, only 2.5% is fresh water, of which 0.3% is easily accessible and renewable.

In the world, water is unevenly distributed. Some countries have too much of it, others lack it cruelly. And through these shortcomings, especially drought and its excesses such as floods, water poses to humanity problems of survival. Having access to a water point does not necessarily mean having access to drinking water. Thus, the problem of lack of access to water does not only arise in countries marked by drought, it also arises in countries where it rains a lot.

A few figures. Nine countries share 60% of the world’s water reserves. Eighty countries suffer from punctual shortages. Twenty-eight countries suffer from regular shortages. One and a half billion people do not have access to clean drinking water. Two billion people are deprived of health facilities. Four million people die each year from diseases related to lack of water. Six thousand children die every day in the world for drinking non-drinking water, although diseases such as diarrhea, for example, are easy to treat.

Sub-Saharan and Saharan Africa, partner countries, the Middle East, Central Asia, are the regions of the globe most affected by these chronic droughts.

Between 1940 and 1990, the world’s water consumption has quadrupled. Within 20 years, global demand for water could increase by 650% for a world population estimated at eight billion.

Today, about 20 countries already live below the threshold of severe shortage. They are located mostly in Africa and the Middle East.

Water is not an inexhaustible resource. There are lots of solutions and the first track lies in the change of mindset that we have to operate in relation to our water management. In this regard, I would like to quote you a few more figures. Did you know that a Wallonian household consumes 80 liters of water per day, that a French household consumes 150 and that an American household consumes 500 liters of water per day? We would therefore need to have a better approach to water management at different levels, but also to put an end to more and more. This is not so simple because the problem is eminently cultural. Another other example. In Iraq, an American soldier needs 75 liters of water to eat, to wash, to drink; a British soldier needs 15 liters and a Foreign Legion soldier needs 7 liters.

You see, this demonstrates the cultural effect in such matters and who better than parliamentarians, in their capacity as representatives of the people, can raise awareness of the populations concerned and, of course, our populations?

As such, the Belgian Fund for Food Safety is an experience ⁇ followed by our foreign colleagues.

I return to the Fund itself and recall that the Fund represents in Belgium almost 35% of the total budget for development cooperation devoted to agriculture and de facto to food sovereignty, but with only 2% of the total budget for development cooperation.

I take this opportunity to relive a call already launched on the World Day to Combat Hunger on 16 October. Mr. Speaker, it would be wise to create in our Parliament a permanent Committee on Development Cooperation with, within it, a committee dedicated to agriculture in the perspective of food sovereignty.

Similarly, on the European level, it would be crucial to take advantage of the Belgian Presidency of the European Union in order to organize an international conference on food security, as inserted in the resolution voted a few months ago. In the same vein, we could also put forward, without any pretensions, while remaining humble, the Belgian Fund for Food Security, which is an original parliamentary initiative. In this context, it would be appropriate – I again call on the President of our Assembly – for Parliament to organise a meeting with our colleagues from the national parliaments of the European Union and the European Parliament. This meeting would allow us to share our experience of the Belgian Fund and to hope, why not, that it will be reproduced in other countries.

With regard to the amendments that have just been filed, these are technical amendments that specify the countries that may be affected by the Belgian Fund for Food Safety. But the proposal does not exclude any of our partner countries. In fact, the legislator takes into account countries with low development indicators. It is important to emphasize that the definition I have just cited, which is repeated in the proposal on Article 6, § 1, covers the countries that are in the group with low human development as well as that with average human development, recognised in the annual report of the CNUD. Let us not forget that different partner countries of Belgian cooperation are part of the middle group.

Moreover, the time is pressing, as the Royal Execution Decree must be taken before the end of the year in order for the Fund to be operational in January 2010. The deposit of this amendment would only delay, once again, the establishment of the new fund at the beginning of 2010.

Dear colleagues, let us face the urgency of the global food crisis and the crying need for action and means in favor of the hungry populations through the adoption of a parliamentary initiative that collects the enthusiasm of all. Let us not forget that this year we have exceeded the billion people who suffer from hunger. According to FAO statistics of one death every three seconds, over the time of my intervention, there were ⁇ 150 deaths.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. This is not a change of legislative text or a government commitment. Parliament is also committed to this.

The Belgian Survival Fund becomes the Belgian Fund for Food Security. This parliamentary initiative was aimed at helping the most vulnerable populations in terms of food security.

In the establishment of this Fund, a special note will be given to the working group, which has been in operation for years and which brings together parliamentarians and representatives of NGO platforms and which also represents the CTB. Through this working group, we can identify the most promising, most important projects and organize collaboration between the different partners.

As Van Daele said in her report, if there is an important principle in the way the Belgian Fund organises its missions, it is this multidimensional and “multi-partnership” approach. It conducts networking work and an evaluation of the objectives, steps and means implemented to give people access to food but above all to develop modes of production, conservation of this production and fair commercialization. This should enable everyone not only to feed themselves but also to have the necessary income to be able to live decently.

Mr. Minister, I would like to ask you to come back before us on the points that could pose problems for NGOs and for us.

To begin with, you will remember that I was angry at the committee because the majority had submitted an amendment that reduced the funding we had planned within our working group. We had imagined for the ten years 360 million while the introduced amendment returns the 250 million from the previous fund. You have committed yourself in commission to request from the National Lottery almost 18 million for the first two years and to supplement them through the CTB budget by 18 million more, which will ultimately give the 36 million annual requests initially. It would then be up to the next government and the next Parliament to ensure sufficient funding for the next.

Therefore, I allow myself, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, to insist on the vigilance that must be exercised, because this fund is our fund. In two years, we will have to think about how to feed it enough to keep existing projects, allow new projects and ensure their sustainability since these projects are characterized by long-term. It is not unnecessary, Mr. Minister, to recall these commitments.

As for priority areas, certain criteria are defined by the United Nations, also defined and integrated in the Belgian cooperation. They will settle how the fund determines which countries or areas will be chosen from among the poorest countries. Among these criteria is the belonging to areas with ⁇ low development and the population of high precariousness.

There are scales at the United Nations and it happens that a country, because its industry is doing better at that time, because trade activity develops, rises a degree in the scale and risks getting out of the category of countries with which one could work. In the committee, you specified that the way it was formulated allowed to work with the weakest but also with the countries somewhat less bad lotus. For example, Uganda and Tanzania, countries with which we currently have projects, rose to 153 on the scale while the lowest are ranked at 151. I would like you to clarify here too that the goal is not to limit ourselves to the weakest among the weak, but to continue to follow those who slightly exceed this category because of their progress, because they have been helped, because they have integrated new management techniques.

In the discussions in the committee as well as in the working group, it appeared that it was very important for some to focus on these areas and work exclusively on those areas.

NGOs have pointed out to us that it is important to be able to work on neighboring areas at a sub-regional or regional level as this is how the impact will be the best and strongest on the population of the area concerned. In our text, many precautions are unfortunately taken to prevent us from losing ourselves elsewhere. Mr. Minister, it would be interesting to clarify that these precautions do not prevent geographical enlargement and that they even allow to justify it in the project developed with the populations.

I would also like to draw your attention to a novelty at the level of the Belgian partners. The “Belgian peasant organizations” gathering farmers have requested to be associated with the Fund and with the peasant organizations of the countries we help with the aim of bringing them their form of syndicalism towards their authorities. I insist that we be vigilant that it is this dimension that is actually used and put on the table of collaboration. This should not be a way for Belgian farmers’ associations to expand their export scope, to export to those countries their agricultural products or methods. In fact, in each of our missions, we have seen the importance of an agriculture that starts from their resources and their methods and is aimed at the local population and the local market. Meeting the food safety objectives is a priority!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today on these elements because the future of the project will depend on it.

Mr Geerts, you have not yet had the opportunity to submit the amendments you have submitted. Since they have been distributed, I can already tell you that we will support them. They ensure that there is no confusion about the scope of the texts of our bill. If I have understood my colleagues correctly, I fear that they will not gather the majority and that they will not be accepted. This can still change!

We will vote in favour of this bill because it is important. This is a collective work resulting from a compromise. Nevertheless, Mr. Minister, our vote will also depend on the quality of the clarifications you make to the questions I have asked you and will involve monitoring through the working group as well as a parliamentary monitoring of the budget that will be devoted to the support of this Fund over the next two years.

I will be brief.

This is an interesting and original proposal with more than one title since we know that it is an initiative that comes from Parliament. This is a good thing because we had the opportunity to conduct discussions within the working groups and on the occasion of a mission with Mr. The Minister and some representatives of NGOs who receive subsidies from the Belgian Survival Fund. This visit was very interesting.

I think it is very important that we today give a third breath to this Belgian Survival Fund.

I am also pleased that we have been able to use the means in this regard. I think there have been some discussions on this subject.

In addition, Mr. Geerts, Mrs. Vautmans and myself, for having deepened some visits during our mission, we would like to draw attention to the gender issue, which still remains important in the country we visited. Therefore, great attention should be paid to this in the projects that will be financed by the Belgian Fund. Why not make it a condition of grant? We must be very cautious about this when allocating budgets to certain partner NGOs.

I am pleased that we can bring this matter to the vote today. I hope we will see the evaluation of this in a few years.

Mr Van de Velde has asked for the word for an interruption.

Mr. Speaker, following the speech of Mr. Jadin, I would like to point out that our Minister, in dealing with his partners — the governments or parliaments he meets in certain sectors or countries — must emphasize that we are not only present to provide support, but that we must also ensure that a mental change is effectively brought about. We do this not only by providing support, but also by correctly and concretely putting it on the table if necessary. Per ⁇ this should not be done in the manner of De Gucht, but it would in any case be wise – I support colleague Jadin in this – that we allow the support to be followed by political weight, which is exercised by the minister.

Thank you, Mr Van de Felde. I now give the floor to Mr Roel Deseyn.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this new law aims to establish a new fund with a different name. It is the Belgian Fund for Food Security, the successor of the so-called Belgian Survival Fund, which was established by the law of February 1999.

For my group and for myself, it is a very important law. After all, development cooperation is part of the DNA of our party, of a modern Christian democracy, not only because of its ties with civil society and NGOs, but also because solidarity with the North and South is an essential part of our ideology.

The facts show that too. It is the second year in a row that there is a substantial increase in the budget for development cooperation. This year, for the first time, we will even reach the mythical norm of 0.7%. We would like to congratulate the Minister of Development Cooperation on this achievement, and in case of enlargement the entire government, ⁇ the former and current prime minister. After all, the increase in the budget in these difficult times of crisis is, for a very large part, also their merit. It is also remarkable that much of the positive result in the current constellation can be written on the account of CD&V and cdH.

Another important achievement for which the majority across party borders has cooperated with the democratic opposition parties — with all the opposition parties — is the new law establishing a Belgian Fund for Food Security.

Can Mrs. Vautmans interrupt you for a moment, Mr. Deseyn?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear Mr. Deseyn reference to the 0.7 %. You put that especially on the hat of CD&V and cdH. I must tell you that this evolution has already begun under the previous government. This is, by the way, mandatory, because we have passed a law in the Belgian Parliament that sets that timeline. Honesty commands that I add that comment to your elegant speech.

I agree with what Ms. Vautmans says.

Mr. Deseyn, first of all, you must know that this was initiated by the purple government. Second, I agree with your words that this government can effectively get 0.7%. However, it goes without saying that when one has a budget with a deficit of several billions, it is much easier to reach that standard. If the purple government had used the same method of budgeting as your government does now, the 0.7% would obviously have been reached earlier. You have, without the slightest doubt, the intellectual honesty to admit that.

I am very pleased that we are getting that 0.7% now.

I find it, and that comes from the heart, a shame that you in this Parliament at a time like this want to discuss who the ideas come from or who the initiative comes from. I find it a shame to talk about intellectual honesty, while we are talking about a food program for people who need it very hard. As a child, you argue about where the idea comes from. I find that painful.

Of course, they have been very selectively quoted from the arguments I have brought. I started by thanking all the parties of the coalition and all the groups for their contribution. It is not because I emphasize some commitments of this or that side desire that one should feel attacked.

By the way, if everything that was announced in the purple period could still have its seat, we would probably be awake in another Belgium.

Our group is a strong supporter of this instrument — which I would like to emphasize — primarily because it focuses on food security. No one will contradict the importance of fighting hunger and food insecurity.

Moreover, as the Minister of Development Cooperation stated yesterday during the discussion of his policy note, the financial and economic crisis further intensifies the effects of the food, energy and climate crisis on the population of the South and on developing countries in general. We must not forget that at present, one-sixth of humanity is facing poverty, food insecurity, malnutrition and hunger every day.

In this perspective, I would like to mention the forecasts for 2050, when 9.1 billion people will need to be fed. This is to say that this is a very relevant proposal. It is also internationally acclaimed, given the experiences with, and the evaluations of, the Belgian Survival Fund in recent years. It is praised on international forums as one of the pearls to the crown of Belgian development cooperation.

However, our group also supports this bill because it addresses the challenges posed today by development cooperation in Sub-Saharan Africa. The development of a dynamic private sector, the creation of a favorable investment climate and the encouragement of large infrastructure projects are, of course, beautifully sounding concepts — they could fit, Ms. Vautmans, in a streamlined neoliberal discourse — but it is about seeing what really can contribute to social and economic development. Projects or their implementation sometimes pose difficulties when they are not supported by solid state structures, civil society organisations and, most importantly, the involvement of the population.

One of the biggest challenges for projects in Sub-Saharan Africa is to reach the affected population directly and obtain real results on the ground. Therefore, in the course of many discussions, I have often broken a lance to organize in the preparation and development of these projects a preliminary phase in which society-building can be provided through civil structures, village councils, trade union or mutualist structures, to have the project properly taken over by the local population, to guarantee ownership and to organize a successful transfer to the population, in the first place with the consideration of making the projects efficient, efficient and long-term.

Results, therefore, that actually leave the meeting rooms and offices where politicians and civil servants interact, and that translate into projects and initiatives on the ground, often literally and figuratively. A thorough review and a recent visit by a parliamentary delegation to more than ten projects from the previous Belgian Survival Fund shows that this fund for food security, which over a decade has fully or partially financed about 120 projects, has achieved very good results on the ground. This is ⁇ related to the specific principles on which the Fund is based, which I would like to briefly remind.

First, the integrated multidimensional approach. Food insecurity has multiple causes and must be addressed at different levels and with different strategies at the same time. This is very important because the Fund represents 34% of the action of the Belgian cooperation on food security. In the preparation and preparation of the fund, it has been shown that one must work on all these axes. It defines seven sectors that are primary for achieving food security. This is both about health, work, and so on. The multidimensional approach.

Second, geographical targeting and identifying the more vulnerable groups. The fact that the fund focuses and defines its terrain literally and figuratively increases the efficiency of the interventions. I am very sensitive to the plea that best practices should be disseminated. This is what we have done with the Parliamentary Working Group during the various missions and also with the mission I recently led in Benin of about thirty people, not only politicians, but also people of the cabinet, of the administration, of the NGOs, both in the bilateral and multilateral delegated cooperation.

The goal was to ⁇ better results. When we have had contacts with local authorities, we have always emphasized that it was their responsibility to pick up, disseminate and promote best practices in their region or subregion.

A third thing is working through partnerships. There is the partnership of the fund with approximately 24 organizations. This includes multilateral partners, NGOs and technical cooperatives. This is ⁇ a positive factor that contributes to the efficiency of the fund.

Fourth, there is the strengthening of local technical capacity, a crucial element. Often there is also a discussion about whether there is sufficient absorption capacity. Asking the question is actually a call to answer them and to strengthen capacity precisely in the countries where we operate and where we offer assistance. It should, I think, be the goal of the Belgian development cooperation to one day leave projects partially or completely to the local partners, because they must of course be involved in the project from the start.

Fifth, we must work over a long term of at least a few years. This is a very important element because it gives the partners and projects a certain stability and allows them to plan over a long period of time, which is crucial if one wants to ⁇ lasting results.

Furthermore, the BOF has clearly demonstrated that it has an added value, because it can often take actions that are difficult to ⁇ through traditional cooperation and because it could ensure that the harmonisation commitments – I mean, among other things, the Paris Declaration and the Accra Forum – are respected. In those international agreements, of course, concentration and limitation of the number of sectors is always sought. That is a good trend in itself, but still there must be enough space to set up a kind of laboratory of development cooperation.

I think that the Belgian Fund for Food Safety can ⁇ contribute to this, because it is precisely with this funding that we can leave the classic boundaries of such arrangements a little to pick up and work out the most valuable, even if that requires a multidimensional or a very specific approach. This is also appreciated internationally. In addition, the Fund supports the process of decentralized local development in the partner countries and often strengthens the already existing Belgian cooperation programmes. So the fund is highly complementary and ⁇ no contradiction in the policy ambitions formulated by the minister and the coalition.

Another important element that I would like to emphasize here is the working group as a parliamentary committee, but in the very broad sense of the word. The fact that the Fund is an initiative of the Parliament and the fact that institutional partners are required to report annually on the progress of the Programme when implementing the Fund’s actions are once again an added value.

It is therefore clear that our group will with great enthusiasm approve the bill for the establishment of a new fund, the Belgian Fund for Food Security.

We are also pleased that, despite the financial crisis, the resources have again been increased and that the Department of Development Cooperation has promised additional efforts. I will say something about this later.

I would like to emphasize another very important point. We will surely ask the Minister of Development Cooperation to answer this explicitly, in order to know his view on the matter. It is about the discussion that has just begun and which is also textually elaborated in the amendments submitted by the opposition and on the banks.

The Belgian Fund’s programmes are implemented in sub-Saharan Africa countries characterized by low development indicators in the United Nations Development Programme report.

Colleagues, I would like to emphasize here very explicitly that the submissions of the proposal with the term low development indicators refer to the countries that are in the annual Human Development Report of the United Nations Development Programme in the group of so-called low human development, but also to countries that are in the group of medium human development.

With the guaranteed definition, with the description as it is now in the bill that comes from the committee and lies on the banks, we really want to defend the very broad interpretation. This is an important point, also for the further development of the projects, for the interpretation of the text that we will approve here tonight. One might wonder why we do not submit amendments. Well, if there is consensus on the broad interpretation, then that should be able to adequately cover the discussions and legal uncertainties in the future.

Several factions, which I have noticed during personal conversations in recent days, are indeed, over the whole majority and ⁇ also over the opposition, clashing behind the broad interpretation. I would like to have said very explicitly here, also before the report, that the legislator – we will soon hear the vision of the minister – has the intention of defining and defining the projects in that direction. Therefore, it is not only about countries that technically fall under low human development, but also about those that fall under medium human development.

On the other hand, we are talking about developing countries. Some of this second group even belong to the partner countries of Belgian development cooperation. We must definitely be able to serve them, if I can speak so.

Another argument is, by the way, the French version, in which one speaks of des indicateurs de développement peu élevés. This confirms that low indicators cannot simply be equated with low human development index.

So that there would be no doubt anymore, I would like to remind you of what the previous law prescribed. It contained exactly the same description and in practice there have never been problems with the project financing of valuable projects in, among other things, Uganda and Tanzania.

I therefore invite the Minister of Development Cooperation here to express his view on that article again explicitly and to confirm that these are countries with low indicators and therefore not necessarily only countries with a low human development index. After all, we find that countries such as Uganda, Tanzania and Ghana are also in the medium group and that we also perform very valuable things there. That interpretation can also be explicitly included in the implementing decisions, so that there is no doubt about it.

The second amendment is about water purification. I think it really makes full sense that it is about sanitation, that therefore it is not just about pure purification in itself. A broad interpretation is also sought, especially for the NGOs that operate there with special knowledge of matters in the field. The fund should actually cover the entire problem of water, not only the organization of drinking water supplies, but also what is called technical sanitation.

I would like to conclude by again explicitly emphasizing that we will vote here on a text with a serious financial impact. We will collect funds here in the amount of more than 250 million euros, mainly generated from playing money from the National Lottery. This was not an easy discussion, as there are also declining incomes there. Well, we have the commitment of the Minister that there is a serious imposition for the next two years.

It is important – I agree in that sense with Mrs Gerkens – that we or the next generation of politicians evaluate in time, take the project back in hand, precisely to allow that financing to survive in the length of days, for the ambition of a fund that can go up to 250 million euros. The question is there. There are sufficient projects. We ⁇ do not want to question the continuity of the current projects. We want to give precise space to the laboratory function of the fund. Those funds, worth more than 300 million euros, will therefore need to be mobilised. Today, in a first step, the majority is legally fixed, but it does not stop there.

I would like to thank all groups for their valued cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur but above all also the ladies Gerkens and Jadin for the report on the entry trip to Benin. That was important parliamentary work and it was a very good report.

The bill on the establishment of the Belgian Fund for Food Safety has reached a very large consensus. Only with the finish in sight is it a little missed. I will return to that later. I have already said that this was achieved with a large consensus. Thanks to the good cooperation with the administration, the ministerial services and the NGOs, we as parliamentarians were actually well fed to put a balanced text on the table. The struggle for food security remains one of the focal points in the development of countries for providing a dignified existence. Unfortunately, many people today are denied the right to food. Mr Wiaux gave the figures. The causes are very diverse. There are climate factors, but above all also inequal rights in political systems and the bad policies of politicians. I must say in this house that people who are thought to stand up for the public interest are often guilty of damaging the public interest. This is something that always strikes me.

Let me return to the current law. The strengths of this legislation are largely taken from the BOF of 1999. The main principles, namely the cooperation between NGOs, multilateral organizations and the government, are deterred. A second element is the multidimensional approach, which is very important.

It also involves strengthening the capacity of local actors and, above all, focusing on the most vulnerable. It is important that these principles, on which there is a great consensus in this House, also remain preserved in this new text.

During the entry trip to Benin, I actually saw that not only the food shortage in itself is a problem, but also the access to those scarce products. Unfortunately, I had to conclude there that women had the greatest difficulty in obtaining that access. I am sorry to say this because I am courageous to admit that the development of societies is primarily done by women. The problem is also that these women have too little to say about the ownership structures, about the land, and how they should actually be organized. As far as I am concerned, the fundamental inequality lies in the ownership structure in most societies. I know that some say that the free market will remove this inequality. In the committee I said – Mrs Van Daele also referred to it – that I do not believe in the invisible hand of Adam Smith. I don’t see them, for me they are invisible. I am even more inclined to advocate for market regulation, which I think is necessary and necessary.

One of the challenges of this new legislation remains to support cooperatives and organize the local village community so that all members of the village community have access to food, health care and education.

This new fund should, in my view, not only pay attention to this micro-action, but should also focus on capacity building at the public authorities. A key element for the success of this fund will be the commitment to also go to the local, super-local and national authorities in the partner countries.

Mr. Van de Velde also said this later. This will be one of the means to be successful.

We must continue to focus on a geographical region where food shortages are the highest.

Let me talk about the funding of this fund. In our working group, we assumed that the resources of the National Lottery would increase with the inflation. In the first legislative texts, an amount of 360 million euros was pushed forward. At that time during the discussion, the majority came up with an amendment to reduce the funding to 250 million euros, with an annual budget of 17.5 million euros.

The Minister committed – I think I am correctly reflecting the facts – to provide in his own budget for the years 2010-2011 with the necessary resources to guarantee the initial funding, and I believed him. My question was then and is now: what after the financial years 2010-2011?

I also said at the beginning of my presentation that the method of work that was handled most disturbed me. I think the process in the past was in a large consensus between the majority and the opposition and that no political games were played. Suddenly, however, we saw that the majority submitted an amendment, an amendment of which we did not know.

If the majority had taken the effort to talk to us about it in advance, which may be at seven o’clock in the morning, then we would have been constructive without any problem and would have sought a solution ourselves. Unfortunately, this effort has not been done.

Although we are 100% behind the substantial functioning of the fund, because Mr. Van der Maelen was one of the pioneers of this matter, we do not take it that in the sight of the finish as pioneers we have frozen the side. Therefore, we will consistently abstain from voting today, as is our position in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly explain the two amendments, which we hope will lead to better legislation.

Mrs Gerkens and in particular Mr Deseyn have already explained these amendments in detail. The explanation itself should no longer occur.

The first amendment involves changing the term "water purification" to "sanitation", because we think that term is wider.

For the second amendment, I refer to the reasons and arguments of Mr Deseyn. The list of countries in the Development Program may change. Low-development countries can rise to medium-development. We have submitted these amendments to ensure that the initiated projects, in countries that go from low development to medium development, can be continued safely and firmly. Collega Deseyn has also cited that there are already projects in countries with medium development.

The motivation and the request of colleague Deseyn to the minister to include this up to three times in the report confirms us that the majority will be very insightful and that we can still deal with this.

I think we can agree on the substantive considerations. It may be wise not to treat these amendments as amendments. If there is a reference to the committee, we risk getting in time for the preparation and publication of the Royal Decrees of the Fund. Then we address the valuable action of our partners in this injustice. Hence the justification of the method we support with the majority.

Mr Deseyn, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, is here. He is behind me. If I ask him to convene the committee still, then we can perfectly handle this during the evening. I do not see the difficulty of this.

Mr. Speaker, the Belgian Survival Fund has been the subject of many discussions, as well as the amendments that have circulated on this theme. We know the content. It would be desirable, in particular with regard to the questions of Mr. Deseyn, in part repeated in the amendments filed on our banks, that we finally have a correct interpretation from the Minister. Indeed, we need to know how to interpret the law in order to determine whether it is really necessary to change, as it is understood, the provisions. Personally, I do not think so. The Minister will eventually confirm an interpretation. I am not in favour of returning the text to the committee, since we have discussed this matter long, that the problem is known and that the minister will ⁇ bring a clarification as to the interpretation to be given to the text.

Regarding the possible transmission to the committee, I would like to point out to the members that it is a bill, but not a bill. So not the interpretation of the minister but the interpretation of the Chamber is here the most important interpretation. It is a parliamentary initiative.

The Minister of Development asks for the word.

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Speaker said. Moriau, who has chaired the working group, and other parliamentarians, in the course of the process in recent months, for which I thank all parliamentarians, we have experienced a ⁇ constructive work in trying to convince each other.

The result is on the table today. It is the fruit of a process that took place in a positive spirit. In the same spirit and logic, I would like to give my reaction to this introduced amendment which, from my point of view, clearly should ⁇ be withdrawn.

I will try to convince you of this, ⁇ on the basis of the justifications I will submit to you. The amendment comes from a misunderstanding that may be due to the vocabulary used in French and Dutch, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to the confusion between two types of indicators, namely an indicator of the UNDP, agency of the United Nations, and an indicator of the World Bank.

I explain to myself. The text specifies, in its article 6, § 1: "The programmes of the Belgian Fund for Food Security are executed: 1) in the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa which present low development indicators in the report of the United Nations Development Programme."

I expressly confirm that this text, as formulated, takes into account the terminology of the indicator of the United Nations Programme and allows without any possible discussion countries such as Uganda and Tanzania to be taken into account.

For the amendment introduced, I feel a confusion with another indicator: the indicator of human development where we speak of medium human development and low human development. In the Dutch translation, when we speak of "low development indicators", we are talking about "lage ontwikkelingsindicatoren"; I think this is the correct version. Lage is low in English; then, we make the link with low and medium, but in an indicator of the World Bank and not of the United Nations, while the text speaks well of an indicator of the United Nations.

Thus, in good faith, a confusion arose among those and those among NGOs who felt a concern about this. So they translated lage into English by low. I confirm, however, that with this formulation, in French and Dutch, if one should choose the World Bank indicator, it is both low medium development and medium human development that are taken into account.

I confirm that the interpretation desired by all the groups of our Parliament concerns countries such as those mentioned.

To supplement, I add that in point 2 and point 3, there is also a priority for areas of food insecurity; this is the case for these countries. Priority is also given to partner countries in development cooperation: this is also the case in the countries concerned.

The amendment was submitted in good faith. But I also feel that this explanation may be able to persuade the sp.a to withdraw this amendment, given the fact that parliamentary work will take these words back.

I understand the problem with the name of the countries. by Mr. Geerts is the only master to decide whether or not to maintain his amendment. The comments you have made are very interesting, Mr. President.

As regards the other amendment relating to the terms "drinkwater in sanitation", can it not be considered to be a technical correction since only the Dutch version of the text is concerned and everyone knows exactly what it is about?

Mr Geerts is of course the master of his amendment, as you indicate. I give the floor to the President of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I have also taken note of the proposal to amend the text in limine litis, even at the end. I have of course considered this. I have contacted the people on the ground, with the administration, to know what the consequences of our text are and what the possible dangers are. I have been fully confirmed by what the minister says and that the intended countries will therefore still be eligible, even if we retain the text.

As for the first part of the amendment, I also see no reason to go back to the committee. It is only in the Dutch text. The French text is very clear about this. As Ms. Gerkens says, it is actually a text correction. I think it cannot be a problem to deal with that without reference to the committee.

I would like to invite my colleagues to vote on this proposal tonight so that everything can be put in place to start on 1 January. In this way, we can arrange everything properly.

I see no reason to go back to the committee. Let us vote on the text as soon as possible, which can indeed make a very valuable contribution to development cooperation and a better world.

I give the floor to Mr Van der Maelen.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that there are indeed two indices to classify countries, those of the World Bank and those of the UNDP. Our amendment is not as innocent as it seems. Our amendment gives a clear preference to the human development index, because that index is much more comprehensive. It is an index that classifies countries not only based on purely economic criteria, such as high or low incomes, but also based on social indicators, such as child mortality and life expectancy. I would like to advocate, colleagues, that we choose the index underlying the amendment submitted by colleague David Geerts. It is first and foremost a much clearer index and, for us, also a much more social index. It is therefore no coincidence that a socialist party or a member of a parliamentary group of socialists submits such an amendment.

I refer to all the criticisms that have been made to the IMF and the World Bank. We know that these two institutions are very strongly impregnated with an obsolete neoliberal economic thought. We uphold our amendment. I will be interested to see how other, self-proclaimed social parties will behave.

Mr. Speaker, within half an hour we can convene the Foreign Affairs Committee and return here to vote on a text that is fully legal.

However, there is no unanimity on sending to the committee. I propose that Mr. Geerts end his intervention. Then there is Mr Van den Eynde and finally the Minister will also answer. Subsequently, the applicant of the amendment decides whether or not to maintain it and submits it to vote. A vote at that moment, as you say, makes something clear.

Mr. Deseyn, you can close slowly because Mr. Geerts is here to take root.

Suddenly, another substantive plea is held by colleague Van der Maelen. While his amendment states very clearly “preferably in countries characterized by low development indicators”, this implies that one should go wider because also in the explanatory note states that countries can shift from one year to another from category. He uses the amendment precisely in order to go wider. Now it is said that this is an important index and we should focus on the criteria of this index. This undermines the spirit of the amendment to expand precisely. It also injures the valuable character of current projects that are not included in this category of the United Nations Development Programme. I think you are now making a curve to initiate some sort of procedure. The consideration of the amendment is in fact to maximise the valuable character of the projects, as now defined in the Fund.

Mr. Van der Maelen has also said that it was not as innocent as it seemed.

I will not deny that the purpose of the amendment is to go wider. It is also intended to be more social. With the measurement tool you propose, it is quite possible that we will continue to provide assistance to a country where some groups have very high incomes and other groups have very low incomes. In itself it is a country that is rich but has an unequal distribution and yet can be eligible. It is really not so innocent.

Furthermore, Mr. Deseyn, if you could, you would also submit an amendment. However, you must not. You weigh under the discipline of the majority. You agree to the adoption of legislation that juridically testifies to poor governance and is much less social than the proposal submitted by the sp.a.

You are discussing further. The value added is somewhat out of mind.

Colleague Van der Maelen, if I were to submit an amendment it would be somewhat more sophisticated and it would be closer to the considerations and ambitions formulated by myself and the minister.

Colleague Van der Maelen, I understand. I think the fund has a specificity. You’re talking about low incomes, but it’s about food security, about food, about agriculture. From your group was Mrs. Detiège who attended the site visit, to assure us of the projects. Well, it really is about the most basic rights, such as having food once a day. In those other countries, other projects are underway and there we have other instruments, bilateral, multilateral and indirect. This is about a specific part on which we want to focus and for which we have set up a specific fund for the third time. Those other countries, those other inequalities, we can help out through other instruments.

Mr. Speaker, I had said that I would make a very short speech. With the discussion of the amendments, it appears to have become a little longer. I would like to thank all my colleagues and the Minister for their attention to these amendments. If these amendments were so shaken out of hand, Mr. Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, this debate would not have been there. These amendments would give the text an added value.

I find that there is consensus to consider the first amendment as a technical amendment and to change sanitation there and thus make a text amendment. This amendment will be withdrawn if there is a text amendment. The second amendment is retained. The vote will then show how it will be voted.

Mr. Minister, I assume that you will not regret me too much that I greet you, because you never greet me, even not abroad. As a son of a Flemish working family, I was taught to be polite and I will remain. Mr. Dedecker, I know that you, as a liberal, do not have too much respect for workers.

The [...]

Between pot and pint.

Mr. Minister, colleagues — so I will continue to say — this is a rather strange story. The present draft is in fact the continuation of what was called the Belgian Survival Fund. It will be coincidence, but the oldest member, not in years but yet almost, but ⁇ in years of service of the Survival Fund, is your servant.

Everyone knows that for years I have been part of the Survival Fund on behalf of my group. Everyone knows that I have always worked very positively but critically on this and that I myself have participated in the meetings that preceded the present proposal. So many other parliamentarians from other political groups were not there. They could be counted on one hand.

Nevertheless, at the end of the story we are presented here a piece that is signed by all traditional parties, from List Dedecker to Ecolo/Groen!, while Vlaams Belang, of course, must not participate. Well, I give that to all those parties. I confess that this does not affect me. If the cordon sanitary ever hurt me, I would have grown a layer of oak for a long time to resist it. However, this is not necessary, because opponents can actually not hurt.

The only painful thing that happens is that butlery, that bigotry, of “Yes, we must cooperate with it and we do that anyway, but when it comes to it, we want to have nothing to do with it.” It makes me think, dear colleagues, of the attitude of wealthy 19th century ladies who went to the Mass every Sunday, but ⁇ should not be seen in the vicinity of an unmarried mother, because that was sin.

That is your attitude, you, the champions of tolerance, the champions of the struggle against exclusion! Once you are dealing with people whom you assume they may think the opposite and defend what you mean, exclude them and become intolerant.

I repeat it, that is not painful for me, but the spectacle is painful. Hypocrisy is painful, bigotry is painful. It’s an obscene attitude, I have no other word for it.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, my group, Vlaams Belang, will nevertheless approve the bill. I will refrain from protesting against what I have called a hypocritical attitude. But my group will approve the proposal because it is about food security, just as the Survival Fund is about nutrition – which was then repeated by, if I am not mistaken, our dear colleague Vautmans – and because the obligation of solidarity exists for all people of good will, around the world, with respect to those who need food.

So do not worry in that regard – not that I assumed that you did – : the Flemish Interest will approve the proposal. You may be ashamed that we also approve this. Then we apologize for that already.

The [...]

Mr. Dedecker, let me speak now. I don’t bother you when you talk. You also become intolerant.

(...) We are supporting you. Be pleased that someone here supports you.

I will give you a big kiss with New Year! well well ?

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I repeat that Flemish Interest, unfortunately to those who envy it, has no problem with the content of the text.

However, I would like to use the debate to talk about the deeper problems of development cooperation. No matter what it is called, no matter how complicated it is made, no matter how wide – I now address the colleagues of sp.a – you want to interpret it, no matter how many NGOs you want to consult, no matter how many measures you want to take, food aid continues to courier am Symptom. Food aid is needed, bitterly needed, unfortunately, but it is not the solution for development cooperation.

The problem, your problem, and unfortunately our problem, is that for decades of development cooperation in this country and in Western Europe was generally regarded as something on which a taboo rested, a sacred cow. Anyone who was critical of development cooperation was immediately referred to one or another place of exile, which in the worst case was called the extreme right, or was in any case considered as someone who was inhuman, because he or she dared to express critical comments on the concept of development aid with us.

It is time for the holy cow to be slaughtered. It is time for us to think about the results of our development cooperation. I would like to remind you that the concept of development cooperation has actually undergone a whole evolution. You will not blame me. I already have a white beard. I have experienced the time when there was a talk about “underdeveloped areas”, in French “les pays sous-développés”. Then it became more and more politically correct and now it is called developing countries. However, the problem has not changed in the meantime. This should be learned: with words you can cure nothing.

I would like to remind you of the time of the 1960s, early 1970s, because the development problem then in fact spread throughout the world, in particular across Asia, South America and Africa. For our post-Marxist colleagues, who may have some homage to May 1968, I would like to mention that it was the time of the Tricontinentale. Some of you may have heard of the Tricontinentale during some training lesson.

There has long been no talk about the Tricontinental. She is over. South America is not a paradise. In South America, there are still a lot of wasteland states. However, the situation has been improved. Asia has improved formidably. In the 1960s, when the government wanted to warm people up for development cooperation, photos from Calcutta, India, were shown.

That time is over. India is an economic superpower, like most Asian countries. There are, of course, some exceptions in Asia. I especially think of Cambodia. However, as you know, not everything has to do with the terrible wars that the Marxist regimes have been waging since 1975.

There is only one continent where nothing has happened. That is Africa. Africa is the continent we are most concerned about. We need to gradually realize that we are not dealing with it properly.

Congo became independent on June 30, 1960. This is an egg 50 years ago. Congo is a country – you won’t blame me for taking Congo as an example – with all the dreamy potential. It should be an economic wonderland. There are herbs of all kinds: from diamond to gold. In addition – I mention this for our friends of Green! It also has an ecological value. The rainforest in northern Congo is one of the most important forests of the whole world. Congo should be the Promised Land.

Colleagues, since 1960 Belgium has invested in the Congo, we are talking more and more about the Congo and some still believe here – I am speaking especially about the crocodiles in Belgian politics – in the so-called, Belgian know-how in the Congo. However, you must begin to realize that since 1960 until now, Congo has systematically declined.

All the investments you have made there within the framework of development cooperation, including the investments of all those people who went to work in good will to gender, have served nothing, on the contrary. I took Congo because this is the country that you and I probably know best. However, I could tell you the same story about every country in Africa south of the Sahara. The same can now be said about South Africa and soon also about Namibia.

We must ask ourselves how this can happen, how it fails there. Don’t tell me that it’s all about the colonial past and that it’s all our fault. That is the classical culpability complex of the European, addressed to us by all sorts of salvation prophets.

The countries in Asia were also European colonies. India was a huge colony of Great Britain. The whole of Indochina was French. You are not going to tell me that those furious colonialists have left Asia untouched and super-exploited Africa. That is not. It cannot be.

Then we must find out that we will once again make sure that people are less hungry. I hope it succeeds. For the rest, our development cooperation has served nothing. Dare to confirm it! Dare to look at the causes. I have a couple. It is only my opinion.

First, I believe that corruption prevails throughout Africa as soon as the Sahara is over. There is corruption everywhere in the world. There is even corruption in us, Mr. Dedecker. I don’t know why you look to the left. I would have understood you. There is corruption everywhere, but admit that what is happening south of the Sahara shaves the highest peaks. This results in everything. Corruption avoids the input of companies. Corruption means that the money that had to go to infrastructure goes to other affairs. Corruption causes wars to continue.

If we are guilty of something, it may be that. After all, it is from this country that the rebels in the Congo are financed and it is us, I said that last week, who train the Congolese army, the Congolese army that kills, rapes and loot its own people.

This is a first problem.

The second problem is the culture, especially among men in Africa. You will hopefully never suspect me of being a feminist, but the attitude of men across Africa creates a lot of problems.

I remember the trip in Benin under the expert guidance of our colleague from Kortrijk, Mr. Deseyn. We then, and I in particular, were able to keep on talking with people there who had to provide some kind of well-being on the spot.

Then there are terrible findings. Then they tell you that the average age at which a woman gets her first child is 16 years and that the average number of children is 15, half of which survives.

This is only the beginning of the story. At the same time, it is said that those women breastfeed after giving birth, which is of course perfect, even if it was just to protect the child, but that there is a taboo. A person should not have sexual relations during the two years of breastfeeding. An elderly woman continues to sleep next to her to keep an eye on her.

The affected mothers can do nothing but look for a replacement for their husband. They prefer to choose a sister or a girlfriend, because they may not walk with their husband later. As a result, more children will be adopted. Then you will tell me that with condoms we can do something to overpopulation. Do not believe that. There is no single African man who wants to use that.

You should ask this in the field. You need to get informed. Then you will be confronted with reality.

The [...] [...]

I am not saying this out of puritanism. I say this because this is the reality. No man wants to use it. I cannot do that either. This is not the fault of my party.

This means that the AIDS flag and overpopulation can be very difficult to combat. These are things that I establish. Maybe there are others.

Please do not apologize, but for those problems you have no answer. You can, of course, say that we are going to apply a gender policy and that we will teach these men to deal with their wives, but that is too simplistic. When you talk about gender there, all those vents smile. They smile kindly, but they think in themselves that they are being made somewhat wise. This is how it goes. That is the reality.

And the corruption, fucking, we maintain them ourselves! We maintain good contacts with Mr. Kabila. Isn’t it, Mr Michel? It is a corrupt regime, a pseudo-democracy, a dictatorship that also struggles with a permanent civil war. We have no answer to that.

Don’t apologize, I think it’s tragic. I also do not know the answer. It is time to think about it. We are told every year that we need to give something more. Would it be better to score 0.7 percent? I believe nothing of that. It does not help. This has been proven for fifty years. Stop with it! Finally start an effective development cooperation. I beg you!

I am at the end of my speaker list. I give the floor to Minister Michel for his response.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the colleagues who spoke and who participated in the work of the working group.

I have been interpelled on a few specific points and I will try to react to the elements that I find important in the context of the text submitted for the consent of the House.

The first aspect concerns financing. There was here an essential question regarding the guarantees to be granted to give operational content to the principles and priorities as they were defined. On this issue of funding, I can confirm the statements that I have already had the opportunity to speak in commission. The National Lottery will mobilise €17.3 million per year, which will be added, for 2010 and for 2011, an additional €18.59 million from the budget of the General Directorate of Development Cooperation.

We had the opportunity to analyze the general policy note in the committee this week and you will have noticed that commitments announced in the committee are found in the draft budget that is submitted to Parliament. Funding will be provided in 2010. It will also be in 2011. For what follows, Mr. Geerts, you will understand that the legislature will be completed and a new parliament will be set up no later than 2011. It will be up to Parliament to define the budgetary priorities. I obviously wish that parliament and government, whatever the composition, confirm these trajectories after 2011.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that these commitments on the budget of Development Cooperation for 2010 and 2011 are important because they allow very concretely to make operational very quickly the fund as it will be voted – I hope – in the coming weeks because the text will probably be submitted to the Senate. It is not necessary to wait for the execution of the projects to be finalised under the angle of the previous fund. This element is extremely important!

I agree with the analysis of my colleague, Mr. Moriau, who said that we must move forward from now on. A few weeks ago, a high-level FAO meeting in Rome emphasized the importance of honouring food security commitments through the mechanisms that are being established. There are lasting answers to this fundamental international challenge, which aims to guarantee food security and progressively go beyond guaranteeing food sovereignty. This initiative is very clearly part of this will and logic. Therefore, I really insist that no time is wasted and that progress is made by voting this text.

Mrs. Gerkens, I would like to mention a second element. In fact, it can be considered that in technical correction, the term "sanitation" is better suited and better reproduces the collective wish of the members of the commission who participated in the work. This will avoid misunderstandings.

We are clear between us and therefore there is really no risk of misunderstanding on this issue. The proposed technique expressed by the chairman of the commission seems to me wise. Finally, without repeating the debate, since we have understood each one’s position, I want to confirm that there is no doubt that the reasoning is extremely clear. There are various international indicators that identify development. It seems to me pretentious to consider that one would be better than the other.

The one who is identified here is not that of the World Bank – ⁇ Mr. Van der Maelen was distracted – but that of UNDP, the United Nations Development Agency. If there is a United Nations agency that is at the heart of the development process, which considers development in all its facets and first of all in its aspect of social solidarity, it is the UNDP.

I am surprised by this reasoning. I think it all started out of a good-faith misunderstanding in the head of a few NGOs who, very legitimately, passed their remarks to parliamentarians. The answer here is a rational answer, which I will try to convince you of. Our colleague Mr. Geerts is very involved in this case, he participated in missions in Benin for the Belgian Survival Fund. I felt in his home an opening when the reasoning was worn. I ask the group sp.a. and Mr. Geerts in particular not to submit to party discipline but to support this rational proposition, in his soul and conscience.

Mr. Minister, I thank you for your concern with respect to my person. I think that the discipline that was in the majority on this amendment was stronger than the discipline in our party.