Proposition 54K1818

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 19 mars 2013 relative à la Coopération belge au Développement.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

May 4, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative formalities aid policy humanitarian aid development aid human rights cooperation policy

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Ecolo LE DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit PS | SP VB

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 ¶

June 9, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Ms Capoen, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, our group is satisfied and supports the measures you will take to streamline the Belgian Development Cooperation Act with the policy you wish to pursue. You set clear steps toward a more integrated operation. Among other things, we consider the GSKs to be a useful tool; they can promote coordination and synergy within development cooperation.

However, I have also made a number of comments in the committee, and on behalf of my group I will bring them up for a moment.

First, the bill does not clearly distinguish between the dome and the federation in non-governmental cooperation. According to Article 11, the dome has an equally important function as the speech tube for the members and as the interlocutor for policy, as the federations. They are equal in it. However, this task is not defined in Article 13 in the definition of both dome and federation for the dome. Therefore, it is not very clear what the function of both organizations is. There is a overlap and in fact both are still subsidized for that. We regret that the draft law has not brought more clarity in this.

Second, we are very pleased that the institutional actors get more recognition and the opportunity to organize themselves into a federation, for which they may be able to resort to the necessary resources. However, linked to my previous point, namely the uncertainty about and the overlap between dome and federation, this leads to the institutional actors there being somewhat disadvantaged in terms of communication to you and the policy. This also applies in the future, when by the end of the year the programmes must be submitted within the GSKs. They are actually represented only in one organization, if they already set up them. After all, in the past there was no federation or no dome for the institutional actors. Now there is the possibility that they will establish a federation, but then they will only have one channel, while the CMOs have two channels, namely the dome and the federation.

This has grown historically, but we hope that this will become more clear in the future. The institutional actors, the Tropical Institute and the universities, should be given the same opportunity as the CMOs.

Finally, in your explanation to the law, you say that it also involves an expansion operation. Especially on the level of the institutional actors, we have already noticed that, as I said. The definition of civil society is also very broad. Different actors may potentially be recognized. Not everyone can automatically apply for grants, but that is no problem. Nevertheless, we believe that the enlargement is not going far enough, as I have already pointed out in the committee. You do not create room for cooperation modalities with actors who pursue goals within international cooperation but who do not wish to resort to grants. For example, some WHOs do not deliberately resort to subsidies, in principle, because they want to stand on their own, but they still want to be relevant for development. The activity of the organization can also be a reason not to apply for grants, such as ⁇ and SMEs, which are not eligible for grants but are now excluded.

In your response to my comments, you indicated that you would like to work with as many private organisations as possible in the future. Well, I’m curious whether and how that cooperation will happen, because there’s not really a legal basis for it. Therefore, it seems to me logical, in the context of the reforms and enlargement you propose, that a legal framework, or at least a procedure, should be established to enable the cooperation between the government and non-subsidized ANGS to proceed smoothly. Ultimately, the outcome and the impact on the ground are more important than who realised it.

There are a number of reforms in development cooperation. I look forward, if I can say so, to working with you. You can count on our support to continue to work on this.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, with this text, we have already had the opportunity to tell you in the committee, you have decided to play a double role. First, that of a firefighter, to better play, then, the role of the firefighter. The fire was such that the majority even had to ask for the urgency for this bill.

You may ask me why I use this metaphor. Because, with your reforms, Mr. Minister, you have literally plunged into a legal void of many actors of non-governmental cooperation. And you yourself, in commission, acknowledged that the current situation was uncomfortable. In fact, you initiated, in 2015, a reform of the financing of non-governmental cooperation and launched, from 2016, a screening to update the accreditations of NGOs and other actors of non-governmental cooperation with access to public funding. In this context, these actors should introduce their programmes for September of this year. These programmes must now refer to common strategic frameworks – a new system introduced in April 2016 – before being finally approved by your administration in June.

The problem, my colleagues, is that the whole new process takes place without actually adopting the legal framework for the reform. This is the precipitation that prevails today. A precipitation that is far from over since the new arrests still need to be adopted. This means that non-governmental cooperation actors have had to settle common strategic frameworks that will have to be appreciated without knowing the exact legal framework.

My colleague Gwenaëlle Grovonius has already asked you many questions about this legal void and the lack of accuracy of the project that is submitted to us today. Furthermore, in its opinion, the State Council has been able to emphasize, repeatedly, the ambiguity surrounding several concepts.

This legal vacuum worries us all the more as we know the projects that will soon come to our banks. Remember, however, that the government agreement and your general policy note promised reforms coordinated with the stakeholders concerned and that time and resources would be given to them to direct the changes. We are very far away!

Finally, let us recall that the previous framework of the 2013 law had been widely welcomed and that your party had taken part in this reform. The urgency with which this majority has decided, once again, to chamboot the sector is all the more curious. We are also looking forward to the answer to a written question from our group to see which actors will retain their accreditation or not following the screening and their linguistic role.

Let us be honest, Mr. Minister, these reforms are ⁇ more justified by a policy of austerity than by a genuine search for improving the impact on the ground of humanitarian programmes or administrative simplification.

Without wanting to repeat here the whole debate held in the committee, my group will therefore abstain from this text to protest against the way that all this has been organized. Finally, please know, Mr. Minister, that my group will be ⁇ attentive to future arrests and especially to the consultation with the sector.

My speech will also be quite brief. I just want to confirm in a few words, Mr. Minister, that the MR Group will vote, as it did in a committee, on the Bill on Belgian Development Cooperation, in particular on non-governmental cooperation, which, along with governmental and multilateral cooperation, represents about 250 million euros annually from Belgian Development Cooperation. This cooperation is implemented by NGOs, trade unions or universities. It is this civil nature that confers it an autonomous right of initiative that has proven quite interesting for cooperation and for its partners.

Mr. Minister, our group ⁇ appreciated the long and very precise response you gave in the committee. We will also be attentive – ⁇ you will be able to provide some information – to the question of the timing of the royal ordinances that will complement the legal framework.

In conclusion, it is true that, for several years, successive Belgian governments, from Charles Michel to Jean-Pascal Labille, have strived to strengthen the effectiveness of non-governmental cooperation. It is this will that you are realising and reinforcing, Mr. Minister, by reducing the fragmentation of interventions, ensuring the coherence of the policies carried out. Furthermore, you are pursuing the administrative simplification that is necessary for the right of self-initiative of non-governmental cooperation. You also took care – which is extremely important to us – of the consultation with the sector. This text, which was approved almost unanimously in the committee, reflects the humanitarian commitment of our government, and we will therefore vote for it.

Thank you, Mr. Miller, for the concise wording.

The amendment of the law on Belgian Development Cooperation aims at modernising non-governmental cooperation in the context of greater cooperation, complementarity and synergy. No reasonable person can actually oppose this, ⁇ not since the change is proposed in consultation with the sectors concerned and also enjoys their support. Our group is pleased that everything is in accordance with the government agreement and that you, Mr. Minister, recognize to the maximum the autonomy of NGOs and thus also their specific added value in developing countries.

The legislative change has had a lot of feet in the earth. For a while there has been a legal gap regarding the recognition and subsidy of NGOs. You were able to conclude a gentlemen’s agreement last summer after fruitful consultations with the NGOs. The transition to the draft law has taken a little too long, which has forced NGOs to work in a legal vacuum. They had to create common strategic frameworks, without knowing whether they would be recognized as NGOs. Today, there are also NGOs that have not been recognized and have yet to create a common strategic framework.

We regret that, but we also understand that the reform, which was quite complex, took a lot of time. The royal decrees must be issued much faster. We will also follow this closely so that the legal gap, which has been there for a while now, will be removed very quickly. It also testifies to some goodwill in relation to their commitment and their willingness to dialogue and consultation that those royal decrees follow very quickly.

We support the draft law because it aims to increase the efficiency of development cooperation on the ground and this is absolutely necessary, especially since it has been done in mutual consultation and with respect for the autonomy and specificity of non-governmental cooperation.

The central objective of the proposed bill is to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of non-governmental cooperation. There are two key principles in development cooperation. Because of the large savings, the resources have become scarce. Therefore, it is necessary to spend them well.

My group is not against reforming our development cooperation. He can better. There should also be attention to the structures.

However, the administrative pressure should not be increased. Given the scarcity of their resources, NGOs want to invest their resources and, above all, their human capital in projects in the field, rather than in the administration.

We believe that the bill is contradictory on this point. On the one hand, an administrative simplification is promised, and on the other hand, the revision obliges them to spend more time on paperwork, inter alia because they need to work with the common strategic framework instrument. Another layer is being created in the development sector. Instead of working on development, you are actually asking NGOs to deliver even more paperwork.

The main question of my group is whether the reform will indeed contribute to effective development cooperation. We are not convinced of that. We are especially concerned that the reform will bring more chaos and paperwork for the sector.

Finally, I would like to talk about the implementation of the bill. There will be two royal implementing decisions, one on financing the subsidy of the non-governmental cooperation actors, and one on the maximum number of common strategic frameworks. We are worried. You have consulted with NGOs, but there are also concerned voices among those NGOs. Particularly the royal decrees will determine the impact of the bill on the sector. We do not yet know its content. Not even the NGOs. Mr. Minister, as long as the contents of those royal decrees are not known, we cannot approve the bill.

Therefore, my group will abstain in the vote.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will speak briefly to say that I am delighted with the outcome of this text. This is the result of a long work that had begun during the previous legislature. This is also the result of a great deal of consultation with the sector, which I am delighted to do. Visibly, he may be able to inspire other members of his government in terms of consultation.

This is the result of a long work, of a good consultation. The various actors of development cooperation, NGOs in any case, have been closely associated with this work. These NGOs themselves were demanding reform.

It seems to us that this reform is going in the right direction: seeking greater efficiency, greater complementarity, coherence in the sector through mechanisms that enable synergies and collaborations between NGOs, in particular in the context of their financing applications, which we welcome.

Moreover, indeed, and other colleagues have already pointed out, the main questions of civil society organizations on ⁇ ining their autonomy have received satisfactory answers. I think it was important and useful that they could maintain their autonomy. You have been quite clear in this area.

Finally, I would just like to say that you acknowledged that large deadlines had been imposed on NGOs for the implementation of their projects within the 2017-2022 program cycle. Hopefully we will be able to overcome this delay. It is important for NGOs that they can be reassured in this area and that they can now implement their projects without further delay.

I just regret that your budget has been reduced so much during this legislature. This is a very bad news for cooperation in general. Indeed, your budget has decreased by 21%, or ⁇ 1 billion euros, in 5 years. This reform has been made imperative in particular due to budget cuts, which is regrettable. However, we will, of course, vote on this law, which is going in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, although we support the need to finally have a legal framework for development cooperation and, let us acknowledge, there are some points that we can support in this project, we will still oppose it, and for several reasons, which I will explain to you very soon.

First, we do not think that the reduction in the number of recognised NGOs, sought for efficiency by the government, is reasonable. Diversity is the wealth of this sector and, in order to increase efficiency, we must first and foremost get out of the austerity framework into which this government plunges development cooperation. All NGOs need to be able to function properly.

Furthermore, we believe that the principle of integrated policy hides an attempt to instrumentalize the NGO sector. We also disagree with the government’s logic of wanting to reduce the number of countries in which Belgian cooperation is active, especially as the minister is in charge of linking the policy of development cooperation with the economic and commercial interests of Belgium.

We also question the time and resources that all these reforms have required and the logic followed by the very costly screening of NGOs by private research agencies such as Deloitte.

It is the basis of this project that to find loose solutions to austerity policy. Therefore, we can only regret the level achieved by the budget for development cooperation. This budget, instead of approaching the 0.7% target, is moving away from it. In 2015, we were at 0.42%, compared to 0.64% in 2010. Compared to countries such as Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, which are above 0.7%, Belgium is really pale in this regard.

Dear colleagues, I will give you the guidelines for this reform, which aims to increase concentration and avoid the spread of resources.

It is therefore intended to ⁇ greater coordination of the efforts on the ground and to be able to implement an administrative simplification. I would like to comment on this, Mrs. Pehlivan, because you say that the administration is becoming heavier. It is not so. The number of grant instruments has been reduced. This is a simplification. There is a better definition of the categories of the various non-governmental actors, which means the relationships need to be more standardised and less documented. Because GSKs exist, less information is required. A more transversal approach to the administration’s evaluation of the programmes will also make it much simpler.

by Mr. Germany has described it well, this reform was made at the demand of the sector. Indeed, the latter had found that due to the domestic law, the situation was very complex and that there was no way to organize the necessary toetsing.

The consultation with the sector was almost daily. Overall, more than thirty consultation meetings were held, as our approach involved legal changes; in the meantime, the actors had to introduce their program. The number of consultations led us to call for the urgency.

As for the KBs, there are indeed two KBs to be taken.

These KBs have also been consulted with the sector. So one cannot say that those two KBs are still hanging in the air or could be surprises. They were also discussed with the industry last week. Once the law comes into force, we will take those KBs.

I was accused of igniting the fire to play the firefighters later. In fact, this is not correct. It could be said that the fire was already underway, but we are not going to get into this controversy. It is the sector itself that has asked for the possibility to change the law. We have taken these steps together with the industry. We reached an agreement last summer, which we tried to translate to legislative level as quickly as possible.

Mrs Bellens, as regards the distinction between dome and federation, we have also talked about this in the committee. A federation represents only recognized organizations, while a dome is actually a member organization with members focusing on the North-South problem. Due to an error in the draft law, there was some uncertainty on this subject, but we have improved that.

I come to the extension of cooperation with organizations that do not receive subsidies. I have already said that I have a particular respect for organizations that choose not to apply for grants, but it is of course difficult to force them to participate in a concertation, since they do not work with public funds. It seems to me logical to ask organisations that receive public funding to work in a more coordinated way. If organizations that do not receive public funds participate, this is very good, but it is impossible to force them, because they actually work entirely on their own initiative.

I would like to decide to thank everyone who has worked especially creatively and constructively. I also want to thank the industry, because this has absolutely not been an easy exercise. Through the consultation and the high urgency we will ⁇ succeed in ensuring that these organisations will receive their funding for the next five years.

Mr. Speaker, just recently in my speech, I recalled the action of several ministers of development cooperation and I forgot to say that my party chairman had also managed development cooperation.

very important accuracy.