Proposition 53K2780

Proposition de résolution relative aux sources innovantes de financement du développement.

General information ¶

Authors

LE Georges Dallemagne
MR Corinne De Permentier
PS | SP Olivier Henry, Karine Lalieux, Laurence Meire, Patrick Moriau, Christiane Vienne
Vooruit Dirk Van der Maelen

Submission date

April 29, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax financing financial transaction resolution of parliament development aid

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP MR

Voted to reject

N-VA LDD VB

Abstained from voting

Open Vld

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Vincent Van Quickenborne (Open Vld) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

July 4, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, it is with great pride that I present today this text of my group co-signed by my colleagues Dirk Van der Maelen, Georges Dallemagne and Corinne De Permentier, to whom I thank for their support.

This text is marked by a long-term vision that I think has been widely shared in the committee.

As underlined by the Minister of Development Cooperation in the committee, the striking lack of development in some regions of the world and the huge inequalities within countries with yet overwhelming growth figures are all threats to the peace and security of the world in which we are evolving. Yes, development policies contribute to world stability. We know this, and many are here repeating it repeatedly in the various forums: development cooperation now faces important and new challenges both in terms of missions and financing objectives.

These are challenges that concern us all: universal social protection, sustainable development, decent work, ambitious Millennium Goals, combating global warming and deforestation.

But we know it, it is almost mathematical, we cannot constantly call for international solidarity, to do more, without giving ourselves the means to do so on a new European, even global scale.

The current economic crisis and its consequences on national budgets must not have the collateral effect of undermining international solidarity. Though fragile in nature, this solidarity has never been so important in an increasingly globalized and interconnected world. The current economic crisis, which affects the Western countries very hard, also directly or indirectly affects the Southern populations massively. But ⁇ this crisis can, must push us to think differently and above all to draw lessons from the past. For development aid continues and must continue to play an essential role in the redistribution of wealth and in the struggle against the increasingly crying inequalities.

However, the context in which public development aid is evolving does not dislike some.

Despite the importance of the APD, it represents only a small part of the North-South financial flows. These changes require not only an adaptation of cooperation priorities, structures and practices but also sources of funding at both Belgian, European and global levels.

This is the point on which our resolution looks, initiating an essential and crucial debate. Its adoption would formulate a clear political message for the future, a solidary future in the development of everyone on the planet.

In order to finally implement this solidarity and not only to be indignant when an actual fact hits the headlines, we must be aware that additional funding is indispensable to ⁇ the ambitious development objectives agreed at the global level and in progress. I am talking here about the Millennium Development Goals post-2015.

This finding has led many international forums to look for innovative sources of financing to complement the traditional APD, even though there is no single definition of what an innovative development financing mechanism is.

Several proposals exist worldwide that would raise significant funds for the development of additional materials. For example, the financial transaction tax, which could bring $15 to $70 billion a year, or the carbon tax, which has an approximate potential of $250 billion a year.

If the words are right, they call for realization. It requires political will, first and foremost. It is no longer the time for defeat. It is, in particular, through these new sources of financing, to contribute those through whom the crisis came, in particular through the financial transaction tax or the tax on the major polluters.

I am proud to see, for many years, that Belgium has positioned itself in the leading peloton of donor countries worldwide. As it has been doing for years, our country must continue its pioneering role in the implementation of the Financial Transaction Tax. The effective will of the Minister of Cooperation and the government agreement confirm the proactivity of our country in this direction.

By voting on this resolution, we reinforce this proactivity by promising broad parliamentary support, but also and above all by reminding that we will be vigilant about the positions defended by our ministers and the results thus obtained in European forums such as the ECOFIN and the global forums.

This tax, thanks to the initiative of eleven European countries including Belgium, could finally be introduced in 2014 at the level of the countries participating in the enhanced cooperation in this area. However, we do not yet know exactly how this will be taken, or even affected.

While governments in Europe and elsewhere need to correct public finances, a financial transaction tax finally offers us the opportunity to tackle growing inequalities in Europe and around the world.

This tax will not hinder the development of the real economy in Europe, nor will it create an additional burden for small savers and SMEs. However, it will allow the financial sector to contribute fairly and substantially to the global public good, for example to eradicate global hunger and climate protection. Of course, these instruments must be complemented by other innovative sources of financing.

For some, in committees, when it comes to concretizing the words calling for solidarity, it is always too early, too difficult, too ambitious. Strangely, I was able to find that those who claim to dare and do have merely dared, asking to do nothing by submitting amendments emptying the text from its substance. Some have mentioned the principle of non-allocation of revenue. I allow myself to refresh their ideas: this famous TTF tax is a post-crisis version of the Tobin Act. On the basis, however, all revenues that were to be generated by this tax were to be allocated to development in the broadest sense of the term. I would also like a global TTF, even universal. But we live in a world that is ours and it is time for Europe to show us that another world is possible. To do this, it is necessary to take on its political responsibilities and its pilgrimage rod. But how can we preach for a measure that we do not even apply within our own continent? It is therefore now that we must position ourselves within the specific framework of this debate, as was the general policy note of the Minister adopted in the committee. It should not be that the grave crisis that strikes us only translates into a selfish retreat. This is why our resolution was written. We call on the Government to promote the diversification of funding resources for national, European, international, public and private development policies, as well as actions of a financial and non-financial nature aimed at promoting sustainable development. We also call on the government to continue to support the introduction of a financial transaction tax through enhanced cooperation within the European Union, then across the European Union and internationally.

Third, actively advocate, in consultation with the other Member States of the European Union, that, as part of the implementation of enhanced cooperation in the field of TTF, part of the resources thus generated be devoted to providing additional assistance to development cooperation, at national and European levels.

As a reminder, in June 2011, my group had already submitted a bill to introduce a 0.05% tax on financial transactions. This proposal provides that the profits of the TTF could thus be used in the state budget to finance a relief plan, but also for Development Cooperation.

Beyond the provision of new sources of financing, the issue raised by the debate on innovative sources of development financing also concerns the governance and use of these sources and the coherence of development policies. This is why the 4th request has been drawn up.

In terms of global governance, taxes and other charges, in addition to bringing new funds, also serve to regulate behavior that may undermine international development goals, such as greenhouse gas emissions, financial speculation and others.

As part of this important debate on the search for new resources and their use, in the various European and international forums, our country must continue to make its voice heard to also deploy its expertise. This is the request 5.

The current debate at the rotating presidency of the European Council and the international community on green climate funds ahead of the next United Nations Conference on Climate Change, ⁇ in Warsaw in November this year, will illustrate this. If this fund is not yet operational, it must have a clearly defined mandate and must be fed by 2020 with innovative sources of $100 billion. This is the request 6.

This needs to be done once again today, for example by allocating resources for the period 2013-2015 at least equal to the annual amount of the early financing period 2010-2012.

In the context of these European and global perspectives, it is therefore more than necessary to identify a trajectory and a fair distribution of the various sources of financing, public and private, in order to ⁇ the objectives to which we adhere so that our country can fully play its role.

By adopting this resolution, our assembly would send a clear and constructive message to the federal government so that it as a whole continues to actively and without distortion support initiatives that will lead to new ways of financing additional development.

I will conclude by saying that improving the quality of life of everyone, regardless of their continent, is a duty of solidarity within a partnership rich both on the human level and in values. This partnership deserves to be fully funded and it is our responsibility to each of us. Without perspective, we are nothing.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues and colleagues, we cannot avoid this. In the current budgetary context, it is necessary to find new sources of financing for development cooperation. This is an idea that my group fully supports. It is therefore obvious that we will adopt this resolution and the basic idea of this resolution.

However, I have some marginal remarks.

The instrument promoted in this resolution as a source of financing is the Financial Transaction Tax, an instrument discussed in 11 of the 28 Member States. It is very good that the European Commission and the Council are now working on this directive. Certainly also at the European level, the Christian Democrats have put their shoulders under their shoulders and they will continue to do so.

It is of course important that it becomes an effective measure for Belgium. The impact on the real economy must be measured. We must make sure that it is not greater than in other Member States, especially if some neighboring countries do not participate. However, that cannot be an excuse. We must ensure that those remaining countries are also persuaded to participate in the financial transaction tax. In this regard, the Minister of Finance will ⁇ take responsibility.

I would also like to briefly address the article on spending half of the proceeds from the auction of greenhouse gas emission allowances to combat climate change and to adapt the developing countries to that climate change.

I think this is a rather problematic passage. We had also submitted an amendment to exclude this passage. I am quite opposed to the idea that there is a pre-destination of certain funds, especially when it comes to new financing points, new channels. I am against the idea that it is said to be used for development cooperation but more specifically for climate action. You should give me some good examples of what it is. I am not so happy with that separate climate pot, that development, which would not be included in the themes of migration, of agriculture, of food security, of public health.

That will not prevent us from approving this resolution. After all, we do not want to wrong the commitment of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as formulated in his policy note. However, it will be important, if one builds separate climate pots, that there is a coherent policy, an efficient and effective policy, preferably not with a separate administration. We need to look at how we can integrate those climate targets and adaptations to changing climate conditions as much as possible with the existing channels, projects and organizations, in order to use the money as effectively as possible and to avoid duplication.

I will continue to follow this critically and look at which projects will be financed with it.

Mr Deseyn, we have discussed this in the committee and you have expressed the same point of view there. However, you should know that climate change, climate warming, first and foremost affects the countries of the South. They are not the ones that cause global warming, but they are the first and main victims of it. It has always been logical to spend a significant part of the revenue from the auction of greenhouse gas emission allowances, namely half, on global warming and its effects in the South.

The position of CD&V surprises me therefore very much because that provision – we are talking about point 7 in the resolution – is formulated in exactly the same way in the policy note of the Minister of Development Cooperation. CD&V has approved this policy note. It is even an important part of it and the Minister of Development Cooperation has also placed a lot of emphasis on it. Nevertheless, you persist in the anger here and repeat what you said in the committee, namely that you actually do not agree with it. This is a new viewpoint of CD&V. I find this ⁇ regrettable.

There is also disagreement in your group. It is good that the party leader is present. Mr Deseyn, your amendment was signed by you, but also by Mr Steven Vanackere. However, when the amendment was voted, you were the only one who still supported it. Mr Vanackere had the wisdom to withdraw this and no longer agree with the position of the CD&V amendment. It is therefore not only that your position apparently goes against the position of the government and the minister, but also against that of one of your yet very prominent colleagues. In this sense, it is even more regrettable.

Mr. Speaker, in my explanation, I referred to the Foreign Affairs and Development Cooperation Policy Note, which incorporates this point. I will only make a few critical remarks on how this needs to be completed.

You are talking about a separate pot. I actually agree with the basic idea that money is reserved for developing countries that are the biggest victims of global warming. However, if we do so through separate channels and projects, I fear that this will lead to doubling and high overhead costs. In that sense, we are not so happy with it.

Of course, much depends on the development. On the one hand, we have made a number of objections – hence the amendment – and on the other hand, we also want to be loyal to the policy note and the international agreements made in this regard.

I think that all of our members share the same point of view.

We will vote tonight on a resolution on the financing of development and, more ⁇ , on the innovative sources of that financing.

Let us not be fooled: the needs to be met by our development cooperation are always equally important. Needs evolve with demographic pressure, advances in medicine in the fight against pandemics, but also the effects of climate change.

Since 2008, public money has become increasingly difficult to raise. For this reason, all departments need to make efforts. Let’s not lie to our partners or our fellow citizens: the target of spending 0.7% of GDP on cooperation will not be achieved by 2015. Not that Belgium is not willing to keep its commitments, not that it is more generous, but we are going through difficult socio-economic times.

At the time, however, Mr. Armand De Decker was in charge of Development Cooperation, very close to the outcome. The political, economic and financial context was different. This can be observed in other countries and in international institutions such as the European Union. The amounts allocated to cooperation are decreasing, I regret it, but this is a fact that is imperative to us.

In the beginning, I would like to point out two points. We must also be aware of the weaknesses that hinder the resolution of development problems. Therefore, even more than additional financial resources, it is the strengthening of local institutions and the improvement of policy that these countries need.

Development issues therefore require an approach that simultaneously emphasizes, rather sequentially, policy, institutions and means in order to improve the absorption capacity of this fund. Furthermore, public development aid should not be opposed to new financing mechanisms.

In September 2000, 189 heads of state and government signed the Millennium Declaration, which formulated eight goals, known as the Millennium Goals, to try to eradicate extreme poverty by 2015.

At the Monterrey Conference in March 2002, the international community agreed that more resources should be allocated to development funding. These funds were to come from increased foreign trade and direct investment, further debt relief operations and increased public development aid.

With regard to this latter aspect, the international community not only reaffirmed its promise of increased aid but also called for greater effectiveness in the allocation of aid according to the principles of appropriation, policy coherence and harmonisation.

However, with regard to the increase in official development aid, an increasing number of reports, including Lula, Sachs, Atkinson, Landau, have pointed out that the situation is becoming precarious. By 2015, if the international community intends to ⁇ the Millennium Goals, the current aid volume would need to be doubled to be between $50 and $60 billion.

This is the starting point for an intensified search for additional financial resources called "innovative financing mechanisms". Some of these techniques are very close to the traditional forms of financing and development. Others are based on taxation, others on voluntary contributions from private individuals.

Among the very close forms of traditional forms of development financing, two initiatives should be noted: the International Financing Facility (IFF) and the Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) with the IMF. These forms of financing are very close to the traditional forms of development financing, as they are, in the end, funded from regular national budgets of donor countries, even though they extend over a longer period, as is the case with FFI.

Forms of financing based on levies include, for example, the Financial Transaction Tax of the Environmental Tax, i.e. a levy on greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide.

The resolution of my political group supports and focuses on these two mechanisms. The MR has always advocated for a tax on financial transactions at European level and welcomes that Belgium is part of the enhanced cooperation at EU level. The tax on greenhouse gas emissions is determined, for its part, during a debate with the government on the distribution of its fruits.

For forms of financing based on voluntary contributions from private individuals, private donations can be encouraged through a tax exemption system or the removal of barriers to currency transfers by migrants.

But the most innovative point of recent years, which includes – I would like to clarify it from the beginning – both positive and negative aspects, is the role of emerging powers that provide development funding in a different way than traditional partners. Emerging partners tend to adopt a more holistic approach to export promotion, direct investment support and public development aid offering. In their partnerships with other Southern countries, especially from Africa, the new emerging powers tend to link negotiation and implementation of activities.

South-South cooperation is based on the win-win concept in which trade and investment are conceived as legitimate and effective means of promoting economic development for both parties.

For many emerging partners, development cooperation is just one part of a broader commitment to boost bilateral trade and penetrate new markets. International cooperation efforts are often conducted jointly with the private sector.

Some also argue that emerging partners offer a double advantage: longer deadlines, which include a period of loss financing, combined with the efficiency of the private sector whose goal is profit. This method could increase the chances of African countries to progress on the global scale of values. As resources are being extracted, new processing industries with high added value, including refineries or petrochemical complexes, should emerge through this system. I remain, of course, cautious about this type of cooperation and I look forward to the long-term studies to know the direct impact of the sustainability of investments.

It is unlikely that a single model of cooperation will emerge in the coming years. This is not necessarily a bad news. There will be not only one source of financing for development cooperation. We must continue, as parliamentarians, to stimulate our government in the search for these funds and in the pursuit of a human-centered and long-term development cooperation.

I will address in particular the authors of this resolution. My group will support this resolution. Who could oppose innovative development funding?

Nevertheless, I would like to make a few remarks on the process that we have repeatedly renewed in Parliament for a number of years. Looking at the content of this resolution, we searched for previous documents and realized that we had voted here for several resolutions on the same subject. Unfortunately, these resolutions have never been followed with effect. I will remind you of them. The first is the Tobin Tax resolution in May 2004. She proposed to reflect on the allocation of the Tobin Tax, which has become the tax on financial transactions, to development cooperation. The Senate adopted a resolution on the Millennium Goals in 2005. A lot of new ways of financing were discussed in order to ⁇ these goals. The Tobin Tax, a tax on large fortunes, the carbon tax, a tax on air transport or a tax on the sale of weapons, was cited. It was also thought of debt relief as a means of easing the economic situation of the Southern countries. In February 2005, the House passed a resolution seeking alternative financing to public development aid.

Following these three recent resolutions, we will vote for something very similar by finding that the government has not yet implemented these alternative financing. I think that the colleagues of the majority might ⁇ make an effort of coherence by asking the minister why these resolutions didn’t have an effect. We therefore allow ourselves to raise some doubt as to the coherence between the vote of these resolutions and their implementation by the government.

What are we talking about here? It is about the implementation of innovative financing, focusing on two modes. First, the tax on financial transactions. Yesterday, the European Parliament voted on a report that opens a new door to the difficult path leading to this tax. In the groups from the parties that constitute the current majority, objections were raised. Similarly, they requested derogations to allow some companies to avoid this tax. We are going on a road full of obstacles. The European Greens, on the other hand, had proposed that part of this contribution could be devoted to development cooperation. This amendment was not taken into account. I see some sort of inconsistency.

Madame De Permentier, it is very good to say that we are going to look for innovative financing for cooperation, but when you say that the budget allocated to her will not reach 0.7%, I do not find that this is a fact. It is a budgetary choice of the majority, which thus diminishes the means of our solidarity with the South. This is a choice we oppose. My colleague Wouter De Vriendt delivered in De Standaard a very good analysis of the danger posed by this leakage which illustrates the idea that public development aid no longer works, so it would be better to go through private aid. But the less developed countries find themselves in situations where private aid can absolutely not meet the enormous and essential needs of the population.

420 million euros were spent in the cooperation budget in 2012. In the first budget 2013, 100 million were withdrawn, 25 million to the second, and 50 million to the third. We also cut off in university cooperation. Likewise, 5% of the payments allocated by the National Lottery to the Belgian Fund for Food Security are removed – however, this is an innovative form of financing! Why act this way while voting a resolution on innovative financing?

I would like to remind you that the text of our resolution states that these innovative funding must be additional, but without ever imposing to be within 0.7%. Income from CO2 emission auctions must be additional; this has always been seen as such.

I fear a shift in saying, like Ms. De Permentier, that the reduction of the Cooperation budget is a fact, that it is enough to supplement it with innovative financing while at the same time, we are not moving forward on the issue of innovative funds, on the issue of the climate fund.

by Mr. Has Wathelet finally implemented the amounts needed to finance the Climate Fund internationally? To my knowledge, no. We are blocked. I recognize that there are also problems of consultation with federal entities, but we are delaying. There is a lack of will from some ministers, but we are delaying in launching this Belgian climate fund and we are not participating sufficiently in the international climate fund, which is expected to raise a hundred billion to mitigate the effects of climate change in the countries of the South.

So I talked about the climate fund that remains static. In any case, the resolution proposes to allocate half of the auctioning of carbon credits to development cooperation. In itself, we are only applying the general policy note. We are not going further than what is announced by the government.

We will vote for this text: we obviously agree to look for new sources of funding. Nevertheless, we would like to ask you to remain consistent and go to the end of your will by translating it into government policies.

We therefore clearly pose the question not only of the government’s follow-up to the resolutions voted in the House but also of the coherence between speeches and decisions.

I hear what my colleague has just said. It is about giving an impulse. Once again, I will return to the general policy note that the Minister defended in the committee and the fact that he supported this cooperation and this innovative matter, especially in his white paper.

The Minister reiterated his objectives. All sectors of the state are contributed due to the extent of budgetary efforts.

And precisely, given the reduction of the budget of Development Cooperation, I think that the momentum must be even greater in order for the financial transaction tax to emerge and for a part to be dedicated to Development Cooperation.

When it comes to progress at European level, 11 countries have taken the initiative and that is nothing.

The tax on financial transactions is under consideration.

Of course, we have to follow all of this.

In addition to Ms. Snoy’s intervention, following Ms. Meire’s reaction and since we are on the 4th or 5th resolution that asks for the same thing to a government that does not implement the measures, I would like to point out that there are other tools than resolutions! There are calls to ministers. Motions can be submitted. Questions can be asked to ministers.

Here, you put us in a situation where one can only support the objectives of the resolution subject to vote but it is to passively accept that the government is not realising its commitments and requests that have been adopted by the majority of the parliament. This passive process becomes repetitive and ineffective!

Of course, there can be a big debate about development. I am the first to engage in such a debate. My group can also show sufficient signs of solidarity in this regard and has also shown. Development, however, is not the debate of this evening, although I would like to lose one consideration on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mrs. Minister, I ask myself more and more questions about how we build cooperation with a number of countries from state to state in our considerations. I have an increasing impression that a number of countries leave to us the cost of deeper structures such as education, healthcare and infrastructure, while the regimes concerned from time to time use the remaining resources, not to say abuse, for a number of other purposes, in which possibly arms and corruption may play a major role.

In fact, from time to time, through our cooperation, we take away the normal burdens of a state that dares to use its own resources, however scarce, for other purposes. This is just one comment that I want to lose today.

In essence, however, it is now about the alternative means of financing development. I agree with those who witness this here again — and why not? — attempts to unleash support for a tax on financial transactions. The government agreement clearly stipulates that the government will also advocate on the European level to introduce, among other things, a tax on financial transactions. We supported that.

We are now trying to get all eurozone countries to share the same goal through bilateral treaties — we are not involved in them — and to enable the introduction of such a tax. You know that the Netherlands, Luxembourg and, outside the euro area, the United Kingdom, do not cooperate in this regard.

What affects me, however, is the use of the resources. It is clear to our group that the additional tax, if it is effectively implemented, should not weigh the global burden but should be able to remain neutral.

As I said during the discussion of an amendment in the committee, what affects me is that the Tobint Tax is sold several times. The Government Agreement states that Belgium will advocate for ambitious decisions to address the challenges facing the European Union, and that this requires an ambitious budget based on new own resources. This refers to the tax on financial transactions. The Tobint Tax has been predestined to some extent in the Government Declaration to facilitate the formulation of the European Union budget, so that it requires less time and effort.

In the committee I submitted an amendment to draw attention to this and to ensure that a tax, whatever it may be, would be compensated by a reduction in burden. My group rejects a heightening of taxation. In addition, one should not affect the same tax twice or three times, so that it is spent twice or three times. The miracle of the multiplication of the bread is in the Bible, but I have not yet been able to establish it in a serious budget.

Mr. Speaker, I am a cool lover of draft resolutions. I would therefore like to make two comments. A few years ago, our colleague at the time, Hilde Vautmans, in the House approved a regulatory amendment, asking for structural attention to resolutions by giving in policy letters a state of affairs on approved resolutions. That has apparently not changed much, but the adoption of resolutions, especially in the Committee on Foreign Relations, is usually preceded by a search for consensus on any amendments. Recently, attempts have been made to reach consensus with various political groups on resolutions with a certain impact. Colleague Van der Maelen can bear that.

I have proposed a similar approach for the examination of this text, which we had not signed, but due to circumstances the committee decided to continue the examination. Amendments were rejected, as well as our own. We do not think this is a good method.

We do not want the tobint tax to increase taxes. Selling the Tobint Tax two or three times for each other goal seems to us not a good way of working.

The cooperation within the committee in the examination of such resolutions, which usually seeks to align the various positions, has led my group to abstain from voting on the proposal for a resolution, without prejudice to normal development cooperation.