Proposition 53K2465

Projet de loi relatif à la Coopération belge au Développement.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Oct. 24, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

sustainable development aid evaluation aid policy humanitarian aid development aid human rights cooperation policy

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) 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. 19, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this is an important legislative initiative that amends a law of May 1999. Thirteen years after the first legislation on development cooperation, we now have a new, extensive text. Your committee has dedicated three sympathetic and interesting meetings.

The Minister explains why the legislation needed to be refreshed. He reiterates that a number of elements, international commitments, positions, have led the situation of development cooperation since 1999 to be evaluated towards sustainable development. The legislation needed an update.

The Minister emphasizes that the changes are quite important. The ODA, the official aid, is currently only 13 % compared to 70 % at the time. A new era of development cooperation is present.

The Minister points out that the framework legislation aims at a number of objectives, including the effectiveness of the aid. If help is given, it must also be effective. The Minister emphasizes the effectiveness of what he calls the “democratic ownership” of developing countries in relation to their partner countries.

The Minister also insists on the principles of sustainability and predictability in that policy, which is reflected in the current legislation. Flexibility in the selection of sectors, cooperation with partner countries and the famous transversal themes have a number of implications. There are also consequences related to the dissolution of aid or, in French, le déliement de l’aide, the use of national implementation systems and the collective approach of a type of common donor strategy.

The next point that the Minister insists on as regards the intentions of the text is to ensure policy consistency, in particular coordination at European level. He gives a few examples of this. He also emphasizes that new elements have been added over the past thirteen years, such as climate change in both directions, from north to south and from south to north, as well as the way development cooperation is funded today. An important point in his presentation is the impact of human rights on development cooperation.

In the general discussion, Ms. De Meulemeester says first and foremost that she is happy with the improvement of the legislation. Belgium can thus better fulfill its international obligations. Nevertheless, she has a number of critical comments, including that the development aid mentioned in the draft law is not detailed and that there are no precise criteria for the transparency of the implementation of budget support.

Of course, she supports the positive way in which human rights are widely discussed in the draft law. She also wants the gender mainstreaming for women and children to be better understood. She also asks why the bill still uses the word development aid instead of development cooperation. She explains that communication between the different policy levels in our country needs to be improved. In addition, she has questions in the definition of the exit strategy. It needs to be more transparent.

She also raises a number of questions related to the recognition criteria for NGOs. These recognition criteria were quite widely discussed in the previous law and here it finds little about them. She will repeat this in her replica. Furthermore, she asks that unprovided assistance as such would no longer be granted without talking about compensation.

Mr Henry points out, on behalf of his group, that he can agree with the general lines of the draft law. In fact, it is a framework text, which provides for the re-alignment of development cooperation. He stresses his satisfaction that the bill provides for a sustainable and ambitious development policy that is consistent with the spirit of the time. He also emphasizes that the efficiency of the support and the coherence of the policies have become core concepts here.

He criticizes the fact that too many partner countries are still counted. Their number should be reduced. Support for flexibility and effectiveness should also be encouraged.

He also remains a strong advocate of gender equality and environmental protection as well as democratic engagement at all levels of partner countries and countries benefited by development cooperation.

He, like many speakers, continues to press on gender equality and on the recognition of the essential role of women.

In several key areas, he considers that progress has been made in terms of development cooperation. He cites human rights, the fight against inequalities, sustainability, inclusive, social development, peace and security.

Mr Deseyn also emphasizes human rights, including gender equality, at the beginning of his presentation. He insists that the private sector, which is assigned an important task in this regard, should also be respected, taking into account the fact that the private sector must be included in an inclusive, fair and sustainable development policy.

He also highlights the transversal themes that play a role in the field of gender equality. He also gives an interesting example, saying that in some countries, a mother who has been in school for at least five years is 40 percent more likely to see her children at least reach the age of five.

Also in the field of health, Mr Deseyn points out that the elements of access to reproductive health and the fight against major epidemics must be taken into account.

Furthermore, Mr. Deseyn emphasizes the importance of education and training. He also addresses an interesting theme, namely the famous sustainability of agriculture and food security. He talks about a new term, which is interesting to repeat, especially land grabbing, being speculation and rising energy prices and concentration of large domains, which counter the small family agriculture.

Finally, he once again explains the view that Belgian development cooperation should promote coordination with the regions and communities and appeal to the local civil society. He also insists that reporting to Parliament would also refer to cooperation agreements, strategic notes, the results of the mixed committees and more.

As other colleagues have done, he emphasizes that development cooperation with some countries in the South today gets a different emphasis if one sees Brazil, China and India still present in the field of development cooperation, where these countries are economies competing in many areas from our own.

He asks whether the support to the local private sector is not overlapping between bio and the fair trade center. He also asks about the effectiveness of humanitarian aid and finally, which is also ⁇ interesting, refers to a 2012 report of the Belgian evaluator of international cooperation, which, according to Mr Deseyn, unfortunately comes to the conclusion that, in terms of poverty and fate improvement, development cooperation can provide few measurable results.

Your rapporteur also highlights the evolution we have seen over the past decade through a number of treaties, of which Belgium has become a part, and the humanitarian aid cited therein. He emphasizes the fact that more than ever the private sector is being invoked.

Your rapporteur is also in favor of reducing the number of partner countries and opposes the fragmentation of development aid. For example, he points out that there are more than 3 000 project evaluations per year in Tanzania, which in fact spends more time on evaluating than on helping.

Mr Dallemagne emphasizes the importance of the bill. He considers that the general framework of this is more of a resolution-like character than it brings out concrete elements, but it is embodied in the new treaties and positions adopted, including the Monterrey Consensus, the Paris Declaration, the Accra Agenda of Action.

He also emphasizes the same as Mr. Deseyn, in particular that the evaluator of development cooperation can hardly measure the impact of development cooperation and that the significant amounts we spend on it should be careful not to lose the support of the public opinion and to keep them warm with transparency and with objectives for development cooperation.

Collega Van der Maelen is pleased, unlike Mr Dallemagne, that the generality of the text offers much more possibilities than before. He also calls for a well-informed public opinion that can then more easily handle the funds requested for the Belgian aid. He insists that the concrete results must be presented here.

He calls for a coherent policy and, like many colleagues, continues to hinder the human rights aspect of that development cooperation.

My cover publisher, Ms. Snoy et d’Oppuers, makes some critical comments on the design. She thinks that the objectives and the means are confused and fears that through the many priority transversal themes, the forest will no longer be seen through the trees. She also notes that the bill contains more liberal choices than the law of 25 May 1999, while she wishes to emphasize other aspects of the bill, such as environmental protection.

One of her criticisms is that the bill pledges more for growth than for development, or in French: "Elle pledge pour que la loi vise le développement, plutôt que la croissance."

She also refers to a theme that has touched everyone, namely the male-female equality, the gender theme, which, although it is a transversal theme, but which, in her opinion, is not sufficiently addressed when it comes to violence against women and to social and economic inequalities, where, unfortunately, women are usually the first victims.

Ms Snoy et d’Oppuers believes that the evaluation process is less well secured by the new legislation than by the previous one. It points out the critical remarks of the State Council regarding the excessive number of aspects authorized by the King to implement this law. It considers that certain powers entrusted to the executive power are not sufficiently accurate and too extensive, in particular those relating to NGOs, evaluation and coherence.

She points out that a number of aspects have not been sufficiently taken into account, including reporting to Parliament.

Finally, it stresses that the intended 0.7 % of gross national income (GNI) is less meaningful in this context, given the budgetary problems.

President François-Xavier de Donnea welcomes the bill, which is less restrictive than the 1999 law and shows more flexibility in development cooperation. He also welcomes the mention of the protection of the environment, and in particular the protection of biodiversity.

He insists that development cooperation should not only be developed between countries, but that a broader support should be given to structures that promote regional integration, including in the area of the Great Lakes.

The Minister replicates first and foremost on the question of parliamentary control. It draws on three elements: first, the Minister’s annual report on development cooperation; second, the report of the Special Reviewer of international cooperation; third, the access to the results of the mixed committees with the communication of the relevant documents.

The Minister recalls that the draft law is a framework law and that therefore a number of additions can be made through legislation and implementing measures.

He says that official development aid has been reduced to approximately 13% over a fifteen-year period and that we need to be more engaged in multilateral codes of conduct. The growing influence of new industrialized countries is also important. Our country’s efforts should focus on the poorest billion of the world’s population, the bottom billion, rather than on the emerging countries that are in a sense structured enough to help their own backward populations.

He talks about post-pedagogical cooperation. It is no longer Tiersmondism or an orientation to former colonies. A completely different world aspect must be addressed.

Co-rapporteur Mrs Thérèse Snoy et d’Oppuers replicates that the answer is insufficient. It is said that too much is aimed at growth and too little on development. She is concerned about the huge growth of the agricultural sector to a kind of industrial agriculture with monocultures and a large dependence on international companies. The description of the Minister’s framework law does not fit because the law is detailed in some aspects, with the exception of the chapters Environment, Social Issues and Women’s Rights.

The rapporteur points out that South-South development cooperation and population density in the South should be taken into account. It should be avoided that some countries such as Uganda and Rwanda only live from development cooperation.

Georges Dallemagne shares the Minister’s analysis on the evolution of development cooperation. However, he regrets that there is little to be found in the bill on this subject. He advocates for even more sense of synthesis and clarity.

Mrs De Meulemeester returns to the question she considers unanswered, namely the criteria of the NGOs found in the previous legislation of May 1999.

The bill was approved by the committee with 10 votes for and 3 abstentions.

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, 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.

The debate on the amendments was long, but helped improve the text, even though many of them were not accepted.

Three amendments were submitted by the majority. Two of them talked about women’s rights. In addition to defending human rights, it was about insisting on gender equality with special attention to women’s rights. The third was about the evaluation process. These amendments, signed by Mr. Deseyn, were incorporated into the text.

The amendments submitted by the opposition had less luck. Thirteen amendments were introduced by the N-VA. Some of them were related to the definition of sustainable development, policy coherence, the issue of children’s and women’s rights, gender equality. Amendments aimed to introduce the concept of as many partner countries as possible. Others were related to the necessary transparency in case of exit from cooperation with a partner country. An amendment aimed to introduce criteria for the approval of non-governmental organizations into the law. An amendment aimed at improving parliamentary control. None of these amendments were accepted.

As regards Ecolo-Groen, my colleague Wouter De Vriendt and I have submitted 21 amendments. The goal was to insist on a stronger definition of sustainability, on the fact that sustainable development means taking into account the limits of natural resources and their preservation. Many amendments aimed to clarify the rights of women and children in the law; in fact, we thought it was defined too briefly, too generally. We also submitted an amendment regarding the civil character of prevention in the definition of humanitarian aid. Other amendments were related to the notion of growth and the need to associate redistribution with it. De Croo noted this in his general report.

We have submitted amendments on the need for policy coherence, our goal being that this coherence is included explicitly in the legislative text and not only in the explanation. In addition, we wanted it to be not only sought but also insured. We felt that the law was drafted too bluntly in this regard.

Finally, we introduced amendments on parliamentary control so that parliament can obtain a government report on the outcome of cooperation, on how the government took into account the recommendations of the Special Evaluator, and on how the government applied the principle of policy coherence.

At the beginning of the discussion, some of our amendments were accepted thanks to the support of the Minister but, then, most of our amendments were rejected by the majority of the members of the committee, despite the support of the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the law on development cooperation that is being voted today is a missed opportunity; a missed opportunity for politicians, a missed opportunity for partner countries and a missed opportunity for the individual citizen. Although this law contains some good and urgent adjustments, it seems to me, given the current changes at the national and international level, that we could have done more. Therefore, I regret that Parliament was barely involved in the drafting of this law.

The discussions in the committee included women’s and child’s rights, the importance of sustainable development, the relations with the states and the need for a coherent federal policy. I regret having to conclude that all the amendment proposals of our group have been systematically rejected a priori. Even if we made substantially and formally progressive proposals, they were wiped off the table without substantial discussion.

So I find it disappointing that the new concept of gender mainstreaming is not included in this new law. During the discussion, Minister Magnette said he did not want to add this concept to the list of definitions, as this is a well-known concept. Why were terms such as “company building” and “partnership” included in this list? These are also generally known concepts.

I find it very positive that human rights are mentioned in the draft law, but in light of the cultural peculiarity of each partner country, I find it necessary that a detailed reference to women’s and child’s rights is also included in the draft law. Then the rights of women and children should also be specifically mentioned in the other articles, and this in addition to the human rights. Here and there this was applied through amendment, but this is still too much based on arbitrariness.

I have also addressed a written question to our President asking to organise hearings with key civil society actors. I have never received an official answer. I would also like to emphasize again the exit strategy. We have emphasized for years that transparency should be at the heart of development policy. I therefore regret the missed opportunity to make the exit strategy more transparent. It is very important that the government of the partner country, the citizens of the partner country and the citizens here in our country know that any cessation or reduction of aid is not a mere political choice. Through such criteria we can inform everyone in a well-founded and involuntary manner.

It is unclear why the Minister could not support that idea.

If we wanted to make real changes, we could have, for example, introduced criteria for the cessation of aid in the law. I mean respect for human rights, the promotion of the rule of law and other crucial elements of a country’s development.

I refer to the debate that took place yesterday in the European Parliament. Karel Pinxten, our representative at the European Court of Auditors, said there were serious doubts about the expenditure of aid. I quote: “Congo received 14.5 million euros last year, while there has been no rule of law for years.”If our committee had had the courage to make the text more progressive, we might have found a solution to such a problem.

This automatically brings me to my last major concern, in particular the role of the Parliament. As regards the follow-up and evaluation of project and budget assistance by the Parliament, this law is deficient. The new law gives the government full freedom to communicate what it wants. We would have liked to see an annual feedback session, which not only discusses the human rights situation, but also the progress in the rule of law and the fight against corruption. Especially for countries to which we provide budget support, this could have added value.

In any functioning democracy, the parliament has the last word on the budget. We demand the same from our partner countries and it would have been nice if we could set the good example ourselves.

The current framework law should last ten years, fifteen years, or maybe even longer. I regret that such an important law was still pursued at the end of the year, without hearings, which are nevertheless very popular in our Foreign Affairs Committee.

The December 11 press release entitled “Paul Magnette modernizes the law on development cooperation” makes clear why this had to be addressed so quickly and why the comments beyond the borders of the majority were barely taken into account. There was some modesty in the minister.

I can only conclude that the discussion of the new law is a missed opportunity to involve Parliament and civil society in a law that directly affects them and so many others. I would like to inform you that our group will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen ministers, dear colleagues, for many years my group has been working, along with many other colleagues, to pursue a key action in terms of development cooperation. An action based on strong principles of solidarity, ethics and defense of the general interest, both between the north and south of the planet and between present and future generations. To do this, as I had already emphasized in the committee, a legal approach was needed more than ever, starting with the right to development for every human being.

This bill, which is a framework text, constitutes a redesign in the continuity of the previous law and the work carried out since. In fact, this text is truly a continuation of the many essential points of the 1999 law. It is of course that the principles, treaties and other acts preceding the Act of 1999 remain relevant and in force. This text is also a redesign that will enable Belgian cooperation to better cope with new challenges. Indeed, an ambitious sustainable development cooperation policy, which fits its time and context, is essential for my group.

Thus I would like to return to several essential points of this law and to new concepts and forms of cooperation put forward here and of which there was little or no discussion in 1999. This new law thus places the effectiveness of aid and development policy coherence at the heart of its priorities. The intention is to ensure the maximum efficiency of both the funds issued and the policies carried out by all departments of our federal state. This bill will therefore try to harmonize the decisions of all our policies by avoiding that decisions taken in one sector come to contradict those taken by another sector.

Harmonization with the cooperation of the European Union and multilateral organisations will also be a priority. In this law, there are not only concepts, there are also themes and goals. The indispensable transversality of issues such as gender or environmental protection is now inserted into the law. This transversality does not constitute a diminishment of these themes, but on the contrary, since they will apply from now on to all interventions of the Belgian cooperation. This transversality will allow us to take these aspects into account in all the actions of our country, in connection with our partner countries, beyond simple declarations of intent. Let us not forget that a law is not literature, every word must have its meaning in order to allow its operational on the ground.

This law, with its purpose of clarification, will enable our country to set ambitious goals for its development aid, despite exceptionally difficult budgetary times.

Yes, in this matter, it is about pursuing essential, ambitious and concrete objectives, such as the democratic involvement of all relevant actors in the aided countries, the development of civil society, the indispensable gender equality and the recognition of the essential role played by women. This role of women is further accentuated through the concept of empowerment added in committee by one of our amendments.

I will emphasize two of these objectives in particular because of the sectors they affect.

First, the emphasis on the healthcare sector, among other things, through a cross-sectional approach to HIV and AIDS. Then, the highlighting of agriculture and food security through the long-running struggles of my group through the interventions of Patrick Moriau in this assembly and in many other European and international forums.

We all know that this new law cannot constitute a statu quo in the multiple crucial therapies it addresses: human rights, decent work, fighting inequality, sustainability, inclusive social development, peace and security, adding an emphasis on the importance of humanitarian aid. These are key issues that the Minister has insisted on since taking office.

This law is by no means an end in itself within a closed context. It really makes a significant step forward in terms of development aid. This law forms the foundation on which other future laws relating to specific cooperation instruments, such as BIO (Belgian Investment Society for Developing Countries) or CTB (Belgian Technical Cooperation) will be based.

In order to ensure compliance with this law, the Minister must submit an annual report before the Parliament, no later than May 15 of each year.

Finally, to conclude, improving the quality of life of everyone, regardless of their continent, is a duty of coherence, a coherence with our deepest values.

For all these reasons, my group will support this text, as we did in committee. Dear colleagues, I hope you will do the same.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, for us this bill is very important and we therefore welcome it very hard. We would like to thank the Minister of Development for the results. Despite the fact that this process has been delayed for a while, the Minister has still managed to complete this all in cooperation with the committee. We therefore believe that this is a very good thing.

Basically, the draft law is based on a number of general principles in the field of solidarity with the South. This is very important for us as a party. If you have listened to the interventions of colleague Deseyn in the committee, you will not be surprised that we are very satisfied with a number of points. There are also a number of points of attention that make us a little less happy or that we would still like to work on.

I would like to emphasize three work points. First, as regards the various priority sectors, we regret that the equivalent sector infrastructure is also still being mentioned. We believe that Belgium should be very careful in developing and supporting infrastructure. At the level of the European Union, one often finds that even with much larger budgets one struggles with building infrastructure. We believe it is much more important to focus on other pillars such as health care, know-how and support. We point out to the Government that it cannot be our intention to support large infrastructure works in the partner countries.

A second focus concerns the scope of the evaluation, the monitoring and the observations in the report of the special evaluator. In his recent report, he strongly called for a uniform system for the formulation of targets and indicators, and the evaluation of achieved or not achieved results and the reporting to the public.

Some of these recommendations are included. Nevertheless, our group regrets the discussion in the committee on the replacement of the words ‘internal control’ by ‘evaluation systems’. For us, the concept of evaluation systems is something different from internal control. We would like to see that we can once again conduct the debate in the committee on how we can properly evaluate development cooperation, on how we can engage the public in it and on how we can properly present those results. We believe that due to this bill that debate has not been exhausted.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Waterschoot, you are right with your comment that we need to evolve into systems to better evaluate our Belgian development cooperation and that we should do so with a high involvement of the Parliament.

I wonder why the CD&V group did not support our amendment. You know that Ecolo-Groen has submitted more than 20 amendments. Our last amendment was just aimed at reinforcing that evaluation, that parliamentary debate.

I have the amendment here. We have proposed to add six points, for example, to say that the information in the annual reports should be much more critical. At the moment it is mostly positive, which was one of the criticisms of the special evaluator, you just said that. However, those annual reports barely address the problems and challenges.

We have submitted such an amendment in order to reinforce it, but we have to conclude that your group did not support this amendment. What is the coherence with the words you have just spoken?

Mr. De Vriendt, I am pleased that you wish to continue this debate. As you know, we will absolutely support this law, we absolutely support it, but we find that some elements have not been sufficiently discussed. It did not seem appropriate for us to quickly amend some sentences in the text on this subject, but the debate is open to us. You should see my call here as a call to the colleagues to continue this debate.

So far in terms of our two points of concern, namely infrastructure evaluation and monitoring.

I would also like to talk about the partner countries. We do not want to question the number of partner countries, but we must take care that we develop a policy that is tailor-made. We do not want to develop the same recipe for all partner countries from Development Cooperation, because that does not seem to us to be a good thing. For countries like Morocco or Tunisia, it seems appropriate for us to invest in technical assistance rather than in the release of financial resources.

I have a general concern regarding the partner countries, which is shared by many colleagues when it comes to Congo. In this period, we will release 64 million euros for Uganda and 160 million euros for Rwanda. Rightly, because these are projects in the fields of healthcare, education, agriculture, rural development and the like, and they must be absolutely supported. However, I still have a very difficult time with the idea that two countries we support seem to still have money to help armed groups in another partner country.

In any case, the debate on Uganda, Rwanda and Congo will need to be renewed following this new law, the new sector criteria and the transversal developments. We believe that this law can provide a good basis for this.

I had some points of criticism in my first part, but I will now go into what we find great about this law and that I also want to emphasize. First of all, it is about the priority themes, the whole gap on the preservation of human rights, the rights of the child and the rights of women. Furthermore, there is the fact that we have managed to get the concept of decent and sustainable work explicitly in the text as a priority theme. For us this is very important. Why that attention to decent and sustainable work in this design? We believe that creating jobs that guarantee a full income gives people access to food security, health care and education for their children and that this also combats poverty.

Trying to integrate the whole concept of self-sufficiency into the fight against poverty seems to us to be the most effective tool.

Again, I emphasize that we are very satisfied with the gap on decent and sustainable work.

In Article 12, § 2, everything revolves around the transversal dimensions that are integrated. I repeat that the gender dimension is very important for our group. Equal rights for women, focus on emancipation, breaking glass ceilings and other socio-economic barriers remain extreme challenges for many women. That was the case thirty years ago, and I fear that many of these countries will remain challenging for the next thirty years. We must therefore constantly pay attention to it.

The next point concerns the priority sectors and the four sectors that were eventually included in the draft. We support the first three sectors very strongly. Health care, especially in the broad sense of the word, should also get our attention. Health care should not be limited to HIV and AIDS. The whole picture must be looked at, namely everything related to access to health care, reproductive health care and the fight against the major epidemics, where HIV and AIDS are indeed important elements. It is especially important that these points are included in the design. Access to health care is crucial. Concepts such as basic health care are big cutting-edge concepts, which, however, can effectively make a huge difference in the field.

In addition to healthcare, there is also education and training as well as agriculture and food security. These are old sectors. I know that in the debates very often reference is made to everything related to the climate problem. It is not that the climate issue is not important to us, but it is not by putting extreme emphasis on the climate issue that the existing challenges for development cooperation disappear. After the traditional challenges, such as education, training, agriculture and food security, we believe it is crucial to work on them.

We give a very positive assessment to the present draft, though with a few comments. Mr. Deseyn has been working on the problem for years. Unfortunately, he could not be present today. However, Belgium, the Parliament and the ministers should be proud of the result. We will approve the draft tomorrow with great conviction.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to highlight eight aspects of this bill which is subject to our wisdom today.

First of all, it is a framework law that is situated in the right of the agreements, consensus that gradually forged within the Committee of Development Aid (CAD) of the OECD and also within the framework of the declarations of Paris, Accra, Busan, which in some way were also the fruit of these subsequent discussions and consensus within the CAD.

The second point I would like to emphasize is that rightly, the bill says that the overall goal of our development cooperation policy must be sustainable human development. But, what is even more interesting than this generality – with which, I think, everyone can agree – is that the bill, in the articles concerning the objectives of our Development Cooperation, emphasizes that the primary means of achieving sustainable human development is economic growth which presupposes that we support in particular local entrepreneurship, local SMEs and also a whole series of initiatives that can contribute in general to economic development and growth.

In addition, the bill highlights that sustainable human development requires not only economic growth but also rule of law, democracy, respect for human rights, good governance. This seems to me to be extremely positive.

The third note I wanted to formulate is that this project leaves us out of the narrow carcass into which the 1999 law had plunged us. It was an extremely rigid law that made it very difficult to adapt our policies to economic and social developments in the Third World.

The fact that the law defines in a way, I think, much more flexible the priority sectors in which our Cooperation should engage in developing countries is a good thing. I am ⁇ pleased to see that support for basic infrastructure has been included among these priority sectors. It is becoming increasingly evident that in many developing countries, food security depends more on good food access to the market, on the connection of producers to the market and on the efficiency of the markets than on the increase in agricultural productivity in the strict sense of the term, or even on the increase in cultivated surfaces.

It is therefore very important that, if one wants to ensure food security, access to basic health care or access to schools, one can also invest in basic infrastructure. For a very long time, this was impossible under the 1999 Act, while very serious studies by the African Development Bank and the OECD show that investing in basic infrastructure is just as essential as investing directly in agricultural productivity, in the construction of dispensaries or schools. This point is very positive. It is at the forefront of the evolution of thinking and practice in the area of development aid.

Fourth, I am also pleased – others have already done so before me – that the text highlights the importance of aid to protect the environment, to adapt to climate change, to protect biodiversity and forests. This is to help sectors that are regional public goods, or in some cases, global public goods, such as the large forests of Central Africa or other tropical forest regions. These goods are not only essential for the development of the countries in question but also for our well-being. By supporting the preservation, preservation and development of these regional and global public goods, we serve ourselves and apply the saying that “good-ordered charity begins with itself.”

The fifth note is that the project supports international organizations working for regional integration. Today it is clear that in most regions of the world, whether in Latin America, Africa, Asia – and so was the case in Europe – there can be no solution to very many problems without regional integration. It is therefore important that the law explicitly provides that the Belgian government can support five regional organizations, to be chosen according to criteria to be defined in royal decrees, because I think we have too neglected support for regional organizations, in Africa or elsewhere. This requires regional organisations to mobilise to address, for example, public health issues that cross borders, safeguarding regional public goods, connecting cross-border markets and organizing regional stocks of emergency humanitarian aid. It is therefore very important that this bill recognizes the regional fact.

Sixth, if we want the projects to be durable, that they last beyond the aid provided, they must be subject to a national appropriation; this is what is called ownership in French. The text allows some projects financed by the Belgian Cooperation to be implemented by national structures. It is clear that all this needs to be controlled. Parliamentarians and the Court of Auditors must ensure that there is no loss of funds in these operations. I think we can no longer adopt paternalistic practices that make it people at home who execute the projects in others. There are now enough technicians and intellectuals in most countries that we help so that projects can be realized, with our help, by national structures.

That said, you will read this morning in a newspaper that the European Parliament is upset by the reliability and legitimacy of budget aid. Personally, I have always been extremely reluctant to budget aid for reasons that are very well described in the report of the European Parliament on this subject. I don’t think this is a path that we should engage in excessively. I rather think that we must support good projects carried out by national or regional organizations in the countries we are helping.

The project, rightly, underscores the importance of policy coherence. It is futile to help one hand if one neutralizes the other by an antagonistic policy in another sector: trade, agriculture, etc. It is therefore important – the draft provides for it – that the government seeks to ensure the coherence of its actions and that any action does not neutralize the efforts made in the area of development cooperation.

Finally, we talked a lot in the committee about the need to control what is happening on the ground, to make sure that our money is spent wisely, not wasted, especially in these times of lean cows. It is important that not a cent, not a franc is wasted. The draft also highlights the importance of parliaments. Indeed, the ones who are best able to control the effectiveness of aid are us! And of course, we must do so with the assistance of the cooperation assessor, that of the Court of Auditors, and ⁇ even more in the context of a dialogue with the parliamentarians of the countries we help. It is very important, Mr. Speaker, to encourage contacts with them, because they also have an interest in how the project works, they also have an interest in checking with us that the money that their government receives for development is really allocated to development and is ultimately not wasted.

Here, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, are all the reasons why the MR will vote this bill which constitutes a great progress compared to the law of 1999, which I had voted against.

Do we need to change the paradigm of development cooperation? This is probably the first question we should have asked ourselves before voting a new framework law in this area. However, it can be regretted that this issue has hardly been addressed.

In his introduction, the Minister cited interesting figures. For example, only 13% of financial flows to developing countries can be identified as aid. He added that it remained the most effective channel for reaching the poorest countries and populations.

The international assessment that is produced annually has often pointed to the dramatic situation – despite this support – of some countries in terms of food security, public health, environmental degradation and also governance. A legitimate claim appeared at international conferences: that of the effectiveness of aid. This request brings us to the essential principle of country appropriation of strategies supporting cooperation mechanisms.

Another trend, very present in international cenacles, is to demand that public development aid serve the needs of economic growth and the opening of developing countries to international trade. This is clearly reflected in the text we are going to vote on. Everyone agrees to recognize that these countries need growth. But we must ask ourselves how it is redistributed and whether it does not destroy the resources that these populations essentially need. Very paradoxically, Belgium’s partner countries with high growth rates are also those where there are many hungry, homeless, displaced populations and where there are persistent conflicts, environmental degradation and huge public health problems. The DRC, to not name it, thus shows a magnificent growth rate of 7.2% in 2012 and could even reach 8% next year.

On the other hand, the major conferences on sustainable development and climate have led us to conclude that developing countries are those who have the majority of the planet’s reserves in the form of natural resources, but that these are not exploited for acceptable social and environmental purposes. In fact, they do not benefit enough of the local population. Worse, serious human rights violations are committed in connection with the exploitation of these resources, whether mining, agricultural or energy.

Finally, these countries will suffer more than others from the effects of climate change, the collapse of certain ecosystems, such as forests with soil erosion, water pollution, not to mention desertification.

Our debt to the South is greater than ever. The design of development aid must, in our view, focus on both social and ecological challenges that condition not only the survival of local populations, but also the survival of the entire humanity.

In this regard, the concept of global public goods is very interesting. This concept is used in the Netherlands as one of the pillars of cooperation. This is about climate stability, biodiversity, but also social indicators such as public health or food security. Basically, these are the basic resources that must ensure the survival of a national community and contribute to the maintenance of a habitable planet.

by Mr. Donnea has recently talked about the issue of basic infrastructure. Not only roads and wells, but also eco-friendly infrastructure should be discussed here.

Our companies must pay off their debts and stop pumping Southern food and energy resources for their own profit, ensure financing for climate change mitigation measures, financing the maintenance of biodiversity, and contribute to good management of mining and fossil resources.

The depletion of ecosystems and non-renewable resources puts in question the survival of which we are, I repeat, the main responsible.

In the face of this landscape, should cooperation not change its look and focus on the above-mentioned issues? The question deserved, in any case, a much broader debate than the one we had and more than a law that we consider a little quick made, drafted at the end of the term. Moreover, the 0.7% that you continue to announce in the law as a goal, while not giving you the means to ⁇ it since the 2013 budget will devote a decrease in the amounts allocated to public development aid, express the paradox that exists between giant issues and a law that remains mediocre.

I come to the bill itself. First, I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the author of the 1999 law, Réginald Moreels, who designed it as a framework law. by Mr. Donnea considered it to be rigid; it could most ⁇ be modified or expanded. Nevertheless, this framework law had much more structure; it also framed a set of actors, which is not found in the project that is submitted to us today.

Obviously, there were good reasons to change the law; we never claimed the opposite. It was a question of alignment with new dimensions and new concepts of cooperation, i.e. registering in reference to the Millennium Goals, the Paris Conference, etc. Mr. Minister, we also appreciate, in the project, the human rights-based approach.

We welcome the concept of policy coherence introduced by the project. However, we consider that you have not gone far enough in the text of the law, since in the explanation of the reasons, you limit yourself to explaining how it is appropriate to proceed. We would have preferred that we could really clarify how coherent federal policies would contribute to development, rather than contradict it, as is sometimes the case in international agreements, such as mutual investment protection agreements, the common agricultural policy or our consumption patterns that impact the natural resources of the countries of the South. This is the meaning of the amendments we have submitted.

While some objectives of the text can be appreciated, we consider that, despite the small adjustments we have obtained through the adoption of some of our amendments, the final result is not optimal. This remains a text that you have taken from the previous minister and slightly adjusted. This leaves the impression of a poorly structured patchwork where, in our view, a confusion persists between objectives, means and priority or transversal themes. The whole is rather confusing: there are four priority themes, three transversal themes ... in short, we mix the brushes a little in there.

We are shocked by the lightness with which you neglected the opinion of the State Council; it was very critical, considering that the whole text had to be rewritten and submitted to it again. The Council notes the lack of clarity, rigour and accuracy. He says that – I quote – “rather than rule of law, these are mere declarations of intentions of which it is not revealed what the exact legal scope may be.”

This is a bit in line with what Mr. Germany: This is more a resolution than a law.

The text, inspired by the previous minister, reveals more liberal guidelines than those of the late 1999 law. This is ⁇ evident with insistence on the financing of socio-economic programmes aimed at improving the investment climate or on the fact that public development aid must promote the participation of partner countries in international trade. Is this a priority? For us, it should not be a goal of aid, even though it can become a means. In addition, we had introduced an amendment calling for a priority participation in regional trade; you agreed, but the majority did not follow you.

For Ecolo-Groen, economic growth must be accompanied by redistribution mechanisms and ensure that it is not destructive of natural resources.

While the emphasis is well placed on respect for human rights, the text that was submitted to us made few explicit references to the immense challenge of gender inequality. The dimension of the gender was only blurred.

Several amendments, including majority amendments, emphasized women’s rights. In my opinion, it would have been better to be more precise, for example, by applying the Belgian law on gender mainstreaming: it describes precise measures for realising a gender commitment. We do not find anything similar.

Finally, while it is the basic law supposed to frame the processes of the Belgian cooperation, we are surprised that it does not mention some of its operators: neither the Belgian Technical Cooperation (CTB) nor BIO, a Belgian company that invests state capital in aid to the private sector, whose actions have been heavily questioned. This framework law, which cites non-governmental organizations and other partners, could also have mentioned such instruments, such as the Belgian Technical Cooperation, with which the government has yet to establish a new management contract, and the company BIO.

We are pleased that you have submitted some amendments. In addition, you felt open to accepting more, but the majority stopped you. That’s why we still have a taste of too little, a taste of sludge, and an impression of a lack of vision that reflects government inconsistency.

In conclusion, we will abstain from voting on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will be brief because I have already said what I wanted to say about this bill in commission. This is actually the first dust clearance of the 1999 law made by Mr. and Morales. This law was useful, important. For the first time, we have developed development cooperation. However, I think that few countries have a framework law on their Development Cooperation and one can be pleased with its existence.

I am also of the opinion that this law should be revised, dusted away because the context of Cooperation and Cooperation itself has evolved enormously over the last decade. Through this bill, better international coordination, better role distribution and, in principle, better efficiency are sought by entrusting more responsibilities to the beneficiary countries. by Mr. Donna has also insisted on this point.

This law actually goes in the right direction, in the sense of the international agenda, in the sense also of what is already being done very widely today, with increased geographical concentration, a division of tasks. The European Code of Good Conduct. There is a sectoral concentration. The number of international and regional agencies is limited and there is a closer link between social development and economic development. All this is done in the interest of greater efficiency and greater responsibility.

We can also rejoice at the fact that the international community has, in the last decade, truly changed its methodology in the field of development cooperation, trying as far as possible – it is always difficult in this field, as in others – to draw lessons from the past. It has been equipped with a series of instruments – a few have been recalled –, principles, ⁇ at an important conference in Paris, and a much closer steering of the efforts of International Development Cooperation.

This is in the interest of the Millennium Development Goals, which will have to be evaluated in only 3 years, since they had been determined over 15 years and covered in particular maternal mortality, infant mortality, the fight against diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

Undoubtedly, results have been achieved in all these areas, but I think our debate takes place at the very moment when international cooperation is going through an existential crisis. It should not be neglected. This is stated by the actors of international cooperation. I myself have worked in this field for almost twenty years.

There is a debate that is just beginning. Probably the law could not, at once, respond to this debate, but it is important to emphasize that it opens today and that Belgium must register. The symptoms of the crisis are very important. The world has changed drastically, our democracies are dismembered, new actors have intervened on the ground, former so-called developing countries and those that continue to be on the list of countries considered as such – China and India for example – are today trade competitors.

The budget allocated to development cooperation is decreasing. They themselves represent less and less important transfers compared to other types of international trade. Even in Belgium, the resources allocated to development cooperation tend to stagnate, if not decrease. I mean as proof that 300 million euros have been pulled out of the next year’s budget this year without causing a real toll. I have not noticed that the press has spread widely on the subject.

This also denotes, in a certain way, the dissatisfaction of the public and, unfortunately, I regret, too little political investment in this issue. It may not be entirely coincidental. This is not a criticism. Don’t take it as such, Mr. Minister, but this is the first time the Minister of Cooperation has three other important portfolios! Obviously, it must divide its time between cooperation and other priority issues. This may be a symptom of the fact that cooperation is experiencing a period of less interest, of less importance compared to what may have occurred in the past.

The Special Evaluator of Cooperation, who has done a very good job, emphasized in his report presented last November 7th to the House that the cause-and-effect links between our cooperation and its impact on development were difficult to establish.

This is an extremely important constatation! I would like to remind you that the budget for development cooperation is in the same order as that of police or justice. Also, this kind of finding made by our special evaluator – ⁇ wrongly, ⁇ not having enough elements in hand, ⁇ ⁇ having to reconsider his judgment in favor of other elements – deserves, at least, a substantial debate about our cooperation.

Some of the countries we have helped the most, for the longest time, are today and still the poorest in the world. This observation also deserves to be kept: in these countries, not only is poverty immense, but inequalities are worsening. Ms Snoy pointed out that, according to the IMF, Congo was experiencing economic growth, but that this was absolutely not reflected in social indicators or in the fate of the Congolese population.

But what is worse is that this cooperation no longer satisfies neither the countries of the South nor the countries of the North. It is felt, wrongly or rightly, as the continuation of the bonds that we had established in the colonial era, the post-colonial bonds in other forms. This feeling leads to sometimes difficult relationships. This is seen regularly when it comes, for example, to negotiate indicative cooperation programmes. Sometimes the ministers do not even move when it comes to substantial, yet substantial, aid from Belgium. The officials of Cooperation point to me, for example, that in Rwanda, there is strictly nothing to say about cooperation anymore. It is our second partner country. I think this is also the kind of debate that should be carried out in Parliament.

The report of BIO – it has been talked about – in charge of private investment in favor of developing countries is crazy. “It is impossible to indicate to what extent the investments have had the expected impact on development, in addition to all the well-known controversy, rightly, on the use of offshore financial centers, the instruments used and the profitability sought in the framework of BIO.”

All the debate we must have probably could not be integrated into the discussions on this bill, but this bill is a step.

I repeat, I think we will need to hold this substantive debate in the future.

It is necessary to continue to focus on the great challenge of human development or on other major challenges that are – I am pleased that other colleagues have also talked about it – what is called global public goods. This seems to me to be an opportunity to completely revise the terms of our international relations in terms of cooperation.

It would no longer be a matter of relations between former colonized countries and former colonizing countries; it would be a matter of deciding together, among equal partners, which are those goods that deserve international protection and mobilization, among which, of course, human development is at the forefront, but also human security, food security, biodiversity, the environment, human rights.

Failing to completely reorganize, to lead this Copernican revolution, to have this paradigm shift, I think we are at risk of gradually seeing our development cooperation fade away. Then, we will never devote the 0.7% again, but we have committed ourselves to devote ourselves to the major international issues that these global public goods constitute.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, from the discussion in the committee, you know that the Ecolo-Groen group has submitted a little more than twenty amendments to the present bill. We believe that this bill was and is necessary. The context has changed since 1999. It is the merit of this government that it has triggered the debate and has been able to reach a final product.

The final product has a number of merits. A number of new concepts are introduced. They continue to build. I think of the Paris Declaration and Busan. In terms of transparency, ownership and incorporating a little more diversity throughout the development field there are absolutely merits, but we need to look at the design in a broader whole and to see if the design is a response to the new trends in development cooperation. I fear that we are lacking in that, that it could have been more and better. I give a few examples.

There are currently many actors involved in development cooperation, not only within its actual domain but also beyond. New countries are promoting themselves as donors, while they were not. There is also a lack of support for development cooperation among our people. People want to see results and expect measurability, while we can’t always give them.

There is another difficulty in the discourse. We can perfectly point out the importance and usefulness of development cooperation, by pointing out the importance of solidarity and by calling for solidarity from the people. On the other hand, in our discourse we must also point out the self-interest in a well-functioning development cooperation and in the integration of countries from the South into our global economy. Nevertheless, I think this is again treacherous. We must not go too far in emphasizing the self-interest, because then the whole discourse on solidarity is underestimated, and because just as the expectation of measurability will be further strengthened. This is an expectation that we may not always be able to meet.

We are in a period of falling budgets and an economic crisis, but let us also refine the analysis there. Some countries succeed in keeping their budgets at a level and even further increasing them — I think of the Scandinavian countries and Britain — while other countries fail to do so. Nevertheless, there are results for development cooperation in the classical sense, as we have seen in recent years and decades. In this context, I think of countries such as Bolivia and Mozambique.

In short, the story that development cooperation serves nothing and that we must greatly expand and emphasize the importance of economic transactions, trade and the like, also has its limits. Development cooperation with sufficiently large budgets can effectively make a difference for the countries in the South. This proves the reality.

I would like to make five punctual comments. In the committee, we have formulated five suggestions to do something better, which we have poured into amendments. We did not submit it again in the plenary session because the debate in the committee was carried out with difficulty.

First, we have trouble with the emphasis on economic growth. We have had a discussion on this in the committee. Economic growth is one of the objectives of Belgian Development Cooperation. We advocate the constant link to the need for redistribution on the one hand and for sustainable development on the other. That link is not strong enough in this text, while we all know from the literature and practice that economic growth in a country is not sufficient to improve the level of prosperity and well-being in an egalitarian way. The link with the concepts of redistribution and sustainable development had definitely met stronger.

Second, I just spoke about the growing importance of trade relations. More and more countries are integrating into our global economy. I believe that coherence is and remains the challenge in terms of development cooperation. This is a very difficult debate. I remember very well how you, in the committee, when you were just a minister, during the discussion of your first policy note, called for work on that coherence. You said then that there are a number of ways to do so, such as interministerial conferences and other mechanisms. However, I have the impression that the result so far is quite thin. Per ⁇ you can get a deeper look at how we can strengthen policy coherence?

We have made a proposal in this regard. There is a passage on coherence in Article 8 of the text. The draft law stipulates that maximum coherence will be sought. We have proposed to strengthen this and, more importantly, to provide for a number of coordination mechanisms as well as follow-up control mechanisms. Control is really needed. You must encourage your colleagues in government to work on coherence. For example, it cannot be that we conduct a protectionist agricultural policy and that we force the countries in the South to open their borders and then flood them with very cheap products from the North. We have a basic law on development cooperation. There are many good elements in it, but as long as we do not work on coherence, and of the awareness of the limits of the free market at global level, we will already ⁇ too little result.

A third point relates to crisis prevention, one of the humanitarian aid tasks set out in Article 2. The debate was also held in the committee. We have proposed to add the word "civil", the civil prevention of conflict situations. If we do not, we will open the door for the use of development cooperation budgets for military prevention. From a certain angle, for example, demining can be seen as a perfect project of prevention. If we integrate prevention into this Basic Law as one of the opportunities for humanitarian aid, it can be perfect that demining is financed from the Development Cooperation budget. We wanted to anchor this, protect it so that this would not be the case.

My fourth and final point concerns the 0.7 % target, which has been formulated too vague. I just said that a sufficiently high budget for Development Cooperation can still make the difference. There is the 0.7% commitment, which we have not fulfilled at any time in the accounts of the past years. The goal was to do so by 2010. This target has now been postponed to 2015.

In Article 9 of the draft law, there is a question of 0.7%, but in a way that is too vague and non-binding. Contribution to the quantitative target of spending 0.7 % of gross national income on development aid is not sufficient. We had proposed to speak there of a guarantee, respect for the 0.7% target, to compel everyone in this country to comply with it. That amendment, however, failed and, like most of our amendments, was rejected by the current majority parties.

One last point I have just cited in my presentation regarding Mr Waterschoot. When it comes to Parliament’s involvement and the provision of information to Parliament, measurability for the population is very important. Measurability, transparency, performance commitments, and so on are elements that we can also discuss in this Parliament.

We have an amendment no. 24 submitted, aiming to be much more critical in the annual reports and in the reporting to the Parliament and to analyze more areas, including the human rights situation in our partner countries, the manner in which the consultation with civil society in the home country is organized, the direction and implementation of development cooperation and the problems and challenges related to the 0.7 % target.

I conclude that there is still a lot of work on the shelf. We have proposed the majority parties to take part of that work on us and anchor it in this law, from which our twenty-four amendments. Unfortunately, most did not succeed. Of course, we will continue to hammer on the points I have just cited.

We will have a lot of debate in Parliament on development cooperation and that is good too. As colleague Dallemagne said, it is ultimately a big budget.

The report was very comprehensive, as well as the interventions. In addition, we had a very rich debate in the commission.

I recall that this law was about a dozen years old: so it needed to be refreshed, to be made to the taste of the day. It was necessary to be able to incorporate all the new principles of this philosophy, this new paradigm of cooperation that has developed internationally over this twelve-year period. In particular, the environmental pillar, sustainable development and the protection of biodiversity should be taken better into account, which are central to this new law.

Without going back to what has been said, two points seem to me really important in this transformation.

The first concerns the scope of the law. The previous law regulated the scope of action of the Minister of Development Cooperation which, ultimately, did not truly engage the rest of the government. This law applies to the entire government, which means that cooperation takes much greater importance in the policy of the federal government. All members of the government have an obligation of coherence: we must ensure that the actions we carry out otherwise do not contradict the results of other actions.

The second is the fact that the very philosophy of cooperation that is embodied in this bill constitutes a definitive break with the somewhat post-colonial or paternalistic climate that has long dominated. The key principle is that of alignment with the priorities of the partner countries; it is that of the appropriation and implementation of these policies by the partner countries. We really move from a logic of rich countries that helps poor countries to a logic of partner countries that, conscious of their inevitable solidarity in the narrow world space, work together for the development of the countries that need it most, truly aligned with what the partner country itself defines as its own development priorities. From this point of view, it is an important breakthrough in the very philosophy of development cooperation. I wish my successors that this is a springboard for a very ambitious action.

I do not see where the rupture is. There is indeed a change of orientation, which we have well mentioned in our interventions, but I do not see how the principles inscribed in this law constitute a rupture allowing a greater appropriation by the partner country. This text reflects the dominant ideology of the North, obviously. One could also find one in the 1999 law, but of a different nature – ⁇ a little more idealistic and generous. Between the lines, one can see the willingness to impose a dominant model, for example when it is indicated that it is necessary to help these countries to open up to international trade. How can they be granted an appropriation in this case? Why is this law better?

Madame Snoy, I would like to finish with these caricatures. For my part, I could tell you that what you defend is a “Bisounours” concept of development cooperation, charitable and pastoral. I do not say. But let’s recognize that when you go to these countries, the first thing they ask you is to help them develop economically and access regional and international markets, as this is the fundamental condition of their development. So let’s do what they ask us, not what we think they should want.

I think you deny the resistance of many countries – for example, within the framework of economic partnership agreements with Africa – to maintain their food sovereignty. The industrialized countries exert enormous pressure that no longer leaves them much room for manoeuvre. So let’s avoid talking about “fundamental breakdown.”

Madame Gerkens, do you also want to comment on this point?

Please apologize, because I have some difficulty with time management.

We are in Brussels on Wednesday.

I need this constant reminder.

Of course, the demand expressed by these countries, especially the poorest, is to be able to develop regional and international economic activity. But, as we have shown from missions in the most disadvantaged areas and meetings with the Belgian Fund for Food Security, it is clear that, sometimes, the leaders of some of these countries demand access to the liberalized market with large cultivated surfaces that absolutely does not meet the food needs of local populations.

The mission of development cooperation must also consist in promoting the creation of tools of economic development for peoples in such a way that they can access a certain degree of autonomy, that they can trade, with a control of the exploitation of their land, their resources and the economic partnerships they develop. However, in my opinion, in the amendments you introduce, there is a party taken in favour of the rules of international trade at the expense of trade to local populations.