Proposition 53K3062

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 3 novembre 2001 relative à la création de la Société belge d'Investissement pour les pays en développement et modifiant la loi du 21 décembre 1998 portant création de la "Coopération technique belge" sous la forme d'une société de droit public.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Oct. 11, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

development policy development aid

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• 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. 5, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

As the rapporteur of the bill amending the law of 21 December 1998 establishing the Belgian Technical Cooperation (CTB) in the form of a public law company and the bill amending the law of 3 November 2001 establishing the Belgian Investment Society for Developing Countries (BIO) and amending the law of 21 December 1998 establishing the Belgian Technical Cooperation in the form of a public law company, I refer to my written report.

I am speaking on behalf of my group.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, we had the opportunity, during the commission debate on the budget 2014 of Development Cooperation, to regret that our budget is significantly distant from 0.7% of GDP. This was a goal for 2015 but, let’s be clear, given the economic situation and our budget situation, we will not be able to reach this amount of public development aid in 2015. However, the report on the Millennium Goals for 2015 and ongoing discussions on how to continue this effort highlight the urgent need to strengthen our efforts to help and accompany countries and peoples towards sustainable development. The solution is to do better with less. The solution is to continuously improve our instruments so that the money we mobilize is best used for the benefit of the partner countries of our cooperation.

Mr. Minister, this debate on the best use of public funds for our development cooperation was at the center of the reflection of your predecessors, Charles Michel and Olivier Chastel, to modernize the 1999 Cooperation Act. The Paris Declaration on the Effectiveness of Development Aid was adopted in March 2005. He finds himself in these bills on CTB and BIO and will come back again when, for example, the new coalition from the polls of 25 May 2014 will re-discuss the list of our partner countries.

All stakeholders in cooperation have this goal in mind: to improve the effectiveness of our public development aid.

If you want to enhance the efficiency, efficiency and transparency and relevance of BIO interventions for ⁇ in developing countries, which as a liberal has all my support for a reduction by two of the number of countries where BIO intervenes, you will apply the Government Agreement.

You modify the legal basis of the CTB to better integrate it into other instruments of our cooperation. We fully support this approach. That is why our group will support both bills.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, BIO SA: this is ⁇ the name of an anonymous company linked to the state that has already flowed a lot of ink. It must be acknowledged that there was something in view of certain aspects. In this regard, my group has never failed to intervene, even though the pure and simple removal of BIO has never been for us a conceivable, even realistic option.

We have always supported the deployment of initiatives aimed at strengthening the productive, financial and technical capacities of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in developing countries, in particular in order to increase their market power and their capacity to respond to the food needs of the population.

This utility has previously been demonstrated. As recalled in the strategic note for the agriculture and food security sectors, BIO has already developed key activities there.

Thus, through the SME Funds and the Expertise Fund, BIO has committed to devote 50% of the amounts allocated by the Belgian State to the development of the agro-food sector, with a preference for food farming. We need to do better today. I think that the positive welcome reserved in commission to this bill, including by my colleagues most hostile to the existence of BIO, proves that a substantial reform has indeed been carried out. No, thanks to this project, BIO will no longer be a rider alone within the Belgian cooperation.

To do better and thus respond to this need for financing, one must open the eyes to past malfunctions or inconsistencies between the methods that were used, the modes of operation and the choice of certain projects that have, unfortunately, marked the existence of BIO.

We must also act with coherence and observing the changes and new needs of a world that we want to be solidary. To do this, I think it is important to emphasize several points that are fully part of this reform and that are essential in the eyes of my group.

First, BIO must truly contribute to strengthening the political, economic and financial manoeuvrability of the public authorities of developing countries. BIO interventions should therefore be accompanied by supporting the efforts of these countries to meet their specific development needs.

Second, BIO must prioritize exclusively projects promoted by local producers and contribute to the strengthening of domestic and regional markets and links between sectors and between rural and urban areas.

Third, in terms of infrastructure, BIO must now focus on essential basic services: water, energy, transport (also in order to unlock agricultural areas), conservation, storage (essential for development).

Fourth, projects involving major international operators, a fortiori transnational companies or offshore investment funds whose production is intended to meet global market demand at the expense of local producers and local demand, should be excluded from BIO financing.

Fifth, BIO must better cover the financing deficit (access to credit) faced by local producers, i.e. family farming, micro-enterprises, SMEs and SMEs. BIO must strengthen the local financial infrastructure.

Finally, BIO should be better integrated into the framework of the Belgian Federal Cooperation, in particular through the establishment of a management contract. The focus should be on micro-enterprises, SMEs and the social economy, the cessation of financing to companies and investment funds from non-cooperative countries. BIO must seek synergies with CTB and our embassies.

I thank you for your attention.

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 purpose of the Belgian Investment Company for Enterprises (BIO) is to support the private sector in low- and middle-income countries.

My group definitely finds BIO a useful tool. If we want to get societies in the South structurally out of poverty, this can only be done by strengthening the economic fabric in these countries. Through international trade and foreign investment, sustainable prosperity can be created.

Over the past months and years, however, BIO has been under fire several times. It is the merit of the civil society that it has exposed a number of unacceptable practices. First of all, they were found in the internal functioning of BIO itself. Sometimes the development relevance of BIO is questioned and votes are taken in order to limit the focus of BIO mainly to providing favorable credit to family farming.

Colleagues, for N-VA, the previous position is not the ideal track. BIO is not a traditional development agency, as BTC is. The loans granted by BIO are granted under market conditions, in which now lies precisely the added value of the institution in question.

We believe it is a good thing that the focus of BIO is not only on the least developed countries but also on the higher categories of middle-income countries.

We also agree with civil society’s criticism of transparency and especially of Parliament’s control. One of the concerns we have repeatedly raised with regard to the Framework Law on Development Cooperation is that Parliament is not involved and even not adequately informed about the policy choices made.

When we review the new BIO Act on the previous consideration, we note that Article 4 stipulates that a subsidy report must be submitted to the Minister annually. The report should include an overview of the activities carried out, a financial balance sheet and an evaluation of the results.

Our group has submitted an amendment to this article in order to submit this report to the House. However, it was unfortunately rejected. Nevertheless, we believe that the list of countries in Article 5, namely those countries that are not eligible for BIO interventions, should also be communicated to Parliament.

Last week, Ms. De Meulemeester attended an interparliamentary conference on the Millennium Goals and the role of Parliament. One of the findings of the conference was that the role of parliaments is decreasing, which is a dangerous evolution.

As people’s representatives, we must be able to perform our duties with all the necessary information available. The Minister does not find it necessary to legally anchor this right to information, if I may call it so. Allow me, however, to refer to BTC’s other bill, where he considered it necessary to legally anchor an additional fee for an additional member of the Board of Directors. Sometimes I wonder where the priorities are.

Given the shortcomings we find in this bill, our group will abstain from the vote.

Mr. Speaker, my speech will not be too long and I will begin with a story.

A few weeks ago I was in Senegal. Senegal’s sesame farmers are approached early in harvest by Chinese speculators, who are buying farmers’ stocks. The farmers do not have the information to know that their products may have a value that is much greater than what they can get through the quick money of the speculators. This is in response to the questions of the speculators. It is then established that the speculators can sell their stocks in excess a few months later. If a farmer’s organization could provide the farmers with quick money – the needs are huge, they need money – then it is established, especially if women are allowed to manage the budget in Senegal, that the money goes to better education and better healthcare.

I wanted to tell this story because it has something to do with the two designs we are discussing today. The CD&V group will approve both bills. After all, BTC and BIO are two of the many players in the development work.

We must acknowledge, Mr. Minister, that in just over half a century, many organizations and regulatory frameworks have been established and seldom abolished. That is a truth. Professor Develtere has already noted this in his book The Belgian Development Cooperation in 2005.

Even with these two useful designs, of course, the architecture of our development cooperation continues to rest a bit on its historical foundations. These historical foundations do not always lead by themselves to the necessary synergy, integration and alignment of our various development efforts. Nevertheless, the international consensus very clearly emphasizes that we urgently need a more holistic approach, with the various instruments at our disposal being used more effectively in a process of mutual reinforcement.

This is also my first appeal to the Government and in particular to you, Mr. Minister, following the approval of these drafts. Through the management contracts and the political leadership you give, Minister Labille, there must be a strong impetus for greater cooperation and an eye for complementarity. Of course, this can only happen if one knows each other’s work.

Investing in areas where Belgian bilateral development cooperation is active, for example in support of areas where our NGOs and universities excel, makes much more sense than taking fragmented initiatives. It increases the impact of what the Belgians are trying to ⁇ with the partner countries and it will in any case increase the know-how and field knowledge of our development community.

I have a second comment. In my view, it will be easier to succeed if we have the courage to realize that the one who wants to be everywhere and want to do everything will likely be excellent in nothing.

I have already emphasized in the committee that Belgian development cooperation needs to evolve more towards a greater specialization. Only in this way can we play a stronger role within the European Development Community, where countries must also grow towards more complementarity. This is, by the way, a principle that was incorporated in the new law on development cooperation in March 2013.

For BIO in particular, this means that a specialization, both thematic and territorial, is really needed. I would like to hear from the Minister that he will strongly support this trend, which has already been announced and implemented.

I have already emphasized in the committee that Belgium must make health an absolute focus, given our excellence and our tradition in that area.

Finally, I would like to briefly remind you of the debate we held in the committee on the famous efficiency requirement for BIO. I will not repeat the debate, but I reiterate my wish that in the coming months and years we will be looking for ways to exempt a certain part of BIO’s budget from that market-oriented demand for yield.

With a certain compartiment — and I do not say that this should hit the whole of BIO’s resources — a more generous approach, strongly based on demonstrable, quantified, social and expected long-term returns, should be possible, even if that means, because of Belgium, a slightly heavier code 8 effort. If we do this, we can, with the help of the Belgian Development Cooperation, ensure that the Senegalese farmers are no longer pushed into the hands of Chinese speculators.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mr. Minister, everyone will remember the media storm raised in 2012 by the reports of 11.11.11 which revealed that the public money of the Belgian State was invested, under cover of development projects, in private projects that had little to do with development; that in addition, part of these credits transited to tax havens or offshore centers, and this with the aim of a financial return.

From that point on, a very healthy movement has developed: an assessment requested by you, Mr. Minister, and the whole government, from the Special Assessment Service for International Cooperation (SES), based in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The first paradox is the fact that this commissioned evaluation included two phases: the first was completed and the second, which consisted of the analysis of specific projects, was carried out during this last quarter and was to be completed by the end of this year. So we were very surprised to see your project come, although knowing that it was necessary to act in this legislature; we agree with you on this point. Nevertheless, seeing it happen in a hurried manner while the evaluation was almost finished seems to us quite paradoxical. Especially since the agenda for next week predicts that the Special Evaluator will come to us to talk about it, while we will already have voted the law. Such a situation shocks us.

I know, Mr. Minister, that you answered that you would take this into account for later, that is, when drawing up the management contract. Personally, I find this a pity: some elements of the law could depend on the assessment and be reoriented. Seeing the adopted course of your framework law, not yet fully completed and which we must revise next week, we hope that this law will experience a less chaotic course. Sorry, but we are critical of the process.

However, this law goes in the right direction: you intend to better frame the activities of BIO. However, where the law sins, it is due to a lack of precision.

Indeed, the State Council says that you lack precision on the collaborations required between BIO and the other operators of the Cooperation, that you do not define sufficiently clearly the elements of the management contract. You had to remove the words “at least.” The content of the management contract is not fully defined in the bill, while it is a request from the State Council. Then, there is a lack of the famous impact assessment on sustainable development, which we would have liked to see appear given the sensitive nature of this law on the subject. We regret these general shortcomings in the law.

In essence, we welcome the fact that the law better frames BIO’s activities by imposing the consistency of BIO’s activities with the objectives of the Framework Law on Development Cooperation. We introduced amendments to clarify how it should be consistent. Unfortunately, you did not accept these clarifications, which were also included in the resolution proposal that we put on the agenda at the same time.

We would have liked to specify the criteria of relevance of the projects that BIO must support. For example, respect for the priority and transversal themes contained in the law, that is, respect for human rights, respect for gender balance, respect for the environment and the goal of consolidating society. We would have wanted to specify in which sectors BIO should invest and how its activities would be able to meet the needs of the local population by relying on local resources and creating jobs. It is necessary to stop making projects that are primarily directed to export or that meet the needs of a wealthy class, which alone can afford such products or services.

We would also like to clarify that BIO projects should contribute to a tax base that provides resources to partner countries for the public budget.

We would have wanted to specify all this in the law but you did not consider it necessary. I regret it. Our Group apologizes for the rejection of our amendments which, however, were in line with your objectives.

The other positive point of the law is that you want to target small ⁇ but, again, we don’t know which sectors are priority.

One of the major problems remaining is the issue of financial return. The question is not resolved. The yield requirement has been linked to code 8 and allows the appropriations allocated to BIO not to be included in the state expenditure budget. The law specifies that “the market rates will be applied.” But in this case, how does BIO differ from other private-market credit opportunities that companies can access? In this regard, we find it indispensable to resolve the issue of financial performance.

We also proposed that BIO assumes the first loss, which helps protect local investors in the event of a deficit or difficulty in an investment. Otherwise, we do not see how BIO is different from a private credit company. You will notice that I also highlight the positive points!

Obviously, we are pleased that BIO funding can no longer transit through investment funds located in tax havens. This is a progress, to be closely monitored. Indeed, it is necessary to know which states will be targeted; moreover, the list of infringing countries varies a lot.

One question remains: what about investments made in these offshore funds? Specifically, did you think of a policy of withdrawal from these investments?

Our group’s latest dissatisfaction relates to transparency and connection with Parliament. BIO reports will not be addressed to parliament but only to the government and the relevant minister. We would have liked to hear the BIO report every year, in order to see if the sustainability criteria were met in accordance with the law.

At the time, the BIO board of directors was also criticized by the Special Evaluator because of the fact that it met a lot, which was very expensive. Per ⁇ he should have delegated much more and be composed differently.

In our proposal for a resolution, we call for development competencies to be taken into account in the composition of the Board of Directors. This is not included in the bill.

We acknowledge that the bill under consideration is going in the right direction, but it is unsatisfactory insofar as it is incomplete, and also due to the fact that the evaluation has not been awaited, which is a paradox. This is why we abstain.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, BIO, or Belgian Investment Company for Developing Countries, has existed for about 10 years, and then it is indeed time for an evaluation of reeling and sailing, achievements and deficits. Where necessary, adjustments can then be made to increase in the future, on the one hand, the transparency and, on the other hand, in our case, the impact. That is, in part, the purpose of the present bill. That, in itself, is a good thing, with which we agree.

For Vlaams Belang, the task and functioning of BIO is one of the few correct tools to engage in development cooperation through equity investment. This may include taking temporary participations in SMEs or facilitating temporary loans to small ⁇ . I think that all this is more than necessary. It is also, in my view, the only right way to promote the self-reliance of the developing countries concerned in the long run.

It is much more effective than just providing lost help, including financial assistance. But too often that help disappears into the bottomless pockets of dangerous and corrupt potentates, or much of it – we also regret it – is spent on the resources of organizations of all kinds.

Of course, BIO should not use dubious structures through tax havens, not even to circumvent corrupt systems in the host countries. We also agree with some – not all – concerns in the Ecolo-Green proposal for a resolution, such as the question of limiting the number of countries to the partner countries of our development cooperation. However, we are and continue to believe that the projects in which investments are made should at least yield a minimum return for the lenders, otherwise the system will not last.

I am confident that the developing countries themselves, as well as the local ⁇ and nering investors in which they are investing, will also agree. He who sows will and must harvest sooner or later, otherwise he will not continue to sow.

Finally, we continue to regret that the committee and now Parliament cannot wait for the discussion of the report of the Special Reviewer on Development Cooperation next week on Tuesday. Per ⁇ that report still contains elements that may influence our opinion about the current bill and BIO. Let’s be honest, I don’t understand and I can’t imagine it’s really coming in a week. As it is now, the wagon is tight for the horses. For that reason, only for that reason, we will abstain.

I will be quite brief. I have already spoken a lot on all these topics in the committee and I think there is no need to repeat in the plenary which has already been long discussed in the committee.

I would like to first welcome the work of the Minister who, through a series of draft laws on cooperation, on CTB or on BIO, wanted to dust out some instruments, advance our cooperation and improve its effectiveness and relevance.

The projects that are presented to us today are ⁇ going in the right direction. I think about the CTB project and the new tasks that are entrusted to it. This is a good thing, especially the welcoming of foreign students in the host houses. This measure reassures the fact that the competence will remain federal. There will no longer be spoken of usurpation or de-federalization. This is an acquisition.

Mr. Minister, in this regard, I would have wanted to obtain clarifications on the scholars who will continue to be welcomed in these host houses. Until now, there were CTB scholars and other types of scholars. Will this always be the case in the future? Will all the scholars in these reception houses benefit from a subsidy for the reception that is provided to them?

The other good news is that the CTB will be able to entrust some of its tasks to civil society organisations.

With regard to BIO, you know my point of view, Mr. Minister. I have had the opportunity to defend him often. First, I would like to point out that thanks to this bill, we end up with ten years of opacity. For ten years, an organization supposed to do development cooperation worked in full opacity, with investments that were, for many of them, in tax havens and on investment projects far from being all convincing in terms of cooperation. It is hallucinating!

We now turn our backs on this period. The BIO activity will be better articulated, more transparent and more relevant. It will no longer exist in tax havens.

We must all, for the future, continue to work on issues of effectiveness and relevance. It is known that the cooperation budget, all instruments confused, is not far from equal to the budget of the Minister of Internal Affairs in the field of police or the budget of the Minister of Justice. This budget is extremely important. Unfortunately, today it serves as a variable of budget adjustment.

Per ⁇ the reason for this is that in the minds of some – ⁇ not yours – this policy is considered less indispensable than yesterday, which can eventually be rebuilt or reduced. I think we need to fight against this.

We really need instruments of international solidarity; and we need that they truly and fully respond to the challenges of cooperation, to the challenges of solidarity. In this context, I continue to think that the framework we have, consisting of a number of organizations, of devices, is ⁇ today still too broken. It’s not me who says it, but the OECD.

I believe that in the future, we will need to continue to work, for example, on reducing the transaction costs, currently significant, to CTB and BIO, so that money arrives faster to countries and projects that need it.

This is what I want to emphasize today, Mr. Minister. But, I repeat, my group will support those projects that I think are going in the right direction. I thank you.

You have lost your bet, Mr. Dallemagne. You said three minutes. It is failed.

I will not be too long. I will start with the scholars, because that’s the easiest question. There is no change for the stock marketers. The change is that now the CTB will be in charge, instead of the DGD, of subsidizing these houses. For the stock market, there are no changes.

All the answers to the questions have already been discussed in the committee. They are included in all of the documents, whether it be the requirement for profitability, or “synergie met de andere Belgische ontwikkelingsactoren, reporting”.

As regards the report, I would like to remind you that there is an annual report from the Minister of Cooperation to Parliament, an annual report from the Special Assessor and an annual BIO report to the Minister. I believe these mechanisms constitute a set of sufficient and necessary elements.

We have already banned tax havens. We need time to break up existing agreements. But today, there is no new convention and these elements will disappear with time.

As for the guarantee, BIO is not an organization that is there to provide a guarantee. It must have a necessary and sufficient level of profitability. In this case, other agencies can take action.

For me there is a new and very interesting element, in particular the question of Steven Vanackere. I think a new thinking exercise is needed now.

I think that even if the mechanisms are barely stopped, if we want to register cooperation in time, we need to start a new reflection on this topic.

I will mention two things that hold me at heart. For example, I wanted the “Great Lakes” point to be on the agenda of the next European Council on 12 December, in particular to address better coordination between donors. Nowadays, everyone works in their own corner as they mean without a good coordination. Then, all the projects that are subsidized are, in the vast majority, very useful, but they are too little connected with each other. I know that NGOs have found this a bit heavy. This is why we asked for contextual analysis. It is not for the pleasure of asking them, but to connect the projects.

For the future, this new reflection is therefore very important and we must start with it now.

I will not be much longer, since all the answers are in the documents that are in the possession of the members.

Mr. De Vriendt, if you allow me to speak, I will first give the floor to the people who spoke in the debate. I think it will be more correct.

I have read your reply to the report in the committee. But the annual report that the Minister for Cooperation in Parliament makes is not just about BIO! In Parliament, we will not have regular monitoring of BIO activities and this contributes to a lack of transparency, despite reorientation efforts. The issue of transparency is insufficiently dealt with as we would have liked that BIO submitted a report on its activities to Parliament every year.

Mr. Minister, I think you get over the interventions quite easily. You say there is no new element after the committee meetings, but that is there. We learn from the agenda of our house that next week Tuesday the second report of the evaluator is on the agenda.

Following the report of 11.11.11. In response to the misversions that came to light, the government decided to order two evaluation reports. The first report was discussed. The second is still not discussed, and yet a new law is being submitted to Parliament, before waiting for the second review.

I remember an informal consultation with parliamentarians involved in the reform. It was then said that the second evaluation would be submitted to Parliament in February. Apparently, however, it was decided to submit the second evaluation already next week on Tuesday.

Why did we not wait for the second report, which cost more than 300 000 euros? I do not understand that. This is indeed a new element. You, as a Minister, have to respond to this. We did not wait for the second report before we passed this legislative amendment. This is ⁇ regrettable. We could have learned from that report so that the reform of BIO could have been even better.