Proposition 54K3212

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 la loi du 23 novembre 2017 portant modification du nom de la Coopération technique belge et définition des missions et du fonctionnement de Enabel, Agence belge de Développement.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

July 11, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

economic development development policy development aid developing countries

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ PP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Jan Vercammen (N-VA) 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 ¶

Oct. 18, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

An Capoen and Gwenaëlle Grovonius, rapporteurs, refer to their written report.

I will speak briefly.

This bill again gives the impression of wanting to hang a new trophy on a wall, to do what has already been done. In short, we make a overplace and end up retreating by destroying laws still recent from just a few years. Unfortunately, on budgetary aspects, the Department of Development Cooperation was not spared. Between 2016 and 2017, public development aid decreased by 6%.

The main problem with the text that is presented to us today is that we do not have the management contract. However, he is the backbone of this project. The State Council’s opinion emphasizes this. It is therefore difficult to know how the monitoring and evaluation of projects will be conducted. There is no information about this. There have already been scandals. BIO has already been profoundly reformed by Minister Labille to circumvent the deviations concerning in particular the selection of projects as well as the use of tax havens.

This could have improved the role of BIO but, today, it is not known to what extent the monitoring will be able to continue. It is also uncertain whether coherence with development policies can be ensured in the future.

Similarly, if one can support the fact that the private sector is also a lever for development, it is more than necessary, given the scandals of the time, to properly frame this support to the private sector. It must ensure that it is well integrated with all relevant actors and, above all, a real follow-up of the risk of undermining the objectives of public development aid is needed.

This project also has positive aspects, including the continued focus on micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. There is also the additionality of the subsidies granted by BIO, the search for better synergies between the different actors or the fact of allowing BIO to make investments with a lower expected return to increase the development impact during its interventions.

These are good things but, unfortunately, key questions remain unanswered, including the content of the management contract that I mentioned recently. It feels like buying a cat in a bag. It is also not known what will be the effective control of the new BIO skills, while human resources remain unchanged. How can we ensure that BIO investments in agricultural projects will not encounter potential land conflicts in the intervening countries? This is also a big question. Finally, the composition of the BIO Board of Directors is problematic. From now on, the CEO of the DGD becomes a member of this board of directors.

This is a point that the State Council has raised. He believes that this could jeopardize BIO’s independence from the administration. Especially because this Director-General will receive a remuneration for sitting in the Board of Directors, while he is already paid as Director-General of the DGD. As to why, on this point, the Minister did not follow the opinion of the State Council, we have no answer on this subject.

Finally, I would like to point out that we really wanted to be constructive by submitting a series of amendments in the committee, in particular to respond to the comments of the State Council. Unfortunately, all these amendments were rejected. For all these reasons, my group will abstain from this bill that is presented to us today.

Our country attaches particular importance to the development of the local private sector in emerging and developing countries. The goal is simple: inclusive economic growth and sustainable development in these countries. It is an indispensable vector of overall, significant and sustainable improvement of living conditions for local populations.

In 2001, the Belgian Investment Company for Developing Countries was established. This, focusing on micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, offers long-term participation and readiness, as well as the necessary technical assistance. It is therefore a central element of our development aid policy. The situation in this area is evolving rapidly.

This is why the functioning of BIO has been regularly adjusted. Thus, since 2012, under the previous government, its entire functioning has been subject to a thorough evaluation. This enabled the development of the law of 20 January 2014 which in particular extended the mandate of BIO to new areas of sectoral activities such as basic services to the population or support for companies of the social and solidary economy. The scope of action has also expanded to 52 countries. Two years later, in 2016, under this legislature, the law of 3 November 2001 was again amended in order, among other things, to open the BIO capital to private investors attaching importance to social and environmental improvement.

Now, two years later, where are we? BIO is part of the European Association for the Development of Financial Institutions with fourteen other similar institutions. Together, they total 30 billion euros. France, Germany and the Netherlands account for three-half of these capital. Belgium is in the middle of other countries. Thus, in 2017, 712.9 million euros were committed mainly in the form of loans, mainly to Africa and Asia. This is a constantly rising amount since, for comparison, we were 172 million euros in 2008 and 459 million euros in 2012, compared to 712 million in 2017, I recall.

Why, two years after the last amendment, want to return again to this 2001 law?

In fact, five objectives are pursued. I will not discuss them here, but I will talk about them in a few words. We want to enable BIO to make investments that have a lower financial return but a better impact on development. This is primarily aimed at the poorest countries, where social yield is necessarily more important than financial yield. We also want to expand the possibilities of granting subsidies. We would also like to make it possible to carry out specific tasks for third parties, and allow the State to entrust specific tasks to BIO or to use its expertise. Finally, we would like to align some elements of BIO’s functioning with that of Enabel.

The purpose of this review is very simple. It is about expanding the range of instruments for BIO, as well as its capacity for action. Through this law, consistency will be increased. It is, for me and for the MR, primary to ⁇ as best as possible the initial goals of the establishment of BIO seventeen years ago. For this reason, the MR group will enthusiastically support the project.

The proposed text constitutes primarily a technical adaptation of the current law. At the same time, we see that the execution is largely determined through the management contract, with yet quite large, political consequences, for which now our carte blanche is requested. The relationship between the legislative text and what needs to be clarified later in the management contract has been diverted. There is no control or participation by Parliament in the management contract. Furthermore, it is impossible to deduce what the outcome will be of the new initiatives mentioned in the draft law.

Colleagues, some concerns both from us and from the civil society were not included in the management contract, some others were not. We are not entirely opposed to the bill, but we are not entirely in agreement with it. It does not go far enough for us and is not transparent enough. Consequently, we will abstain.

Dear colleagues, I thank you for your questions. Minister De Croo hears your comments on the issue of management contracts. Ladies Grovonius and Pehlivan, he is quite willing to come in commission to explain the management contracts and I wanted to tell you that.

As Minister of Development Cooperation, he attaches great importance to the development of the local private sector in emerging and developing countries. I would like to thank Mrs. Grovonius who, in fact, has highlighted a number of positive things in this project.

I will not go back in detail on the project because the Minister has largely responded in the committee. Madame Grovonius, you expressed a willingness to have a strong instrument to support the local private sector in these countries, a sector that is not only interested in the issue of yield but also in that of social and environmental impacts and which intends to work with small structures and small farms, like what is done with micro-credit.

There is, in this project, a willingness to turn to smaller structures and better support them while having a broader expertise - this has also been highlighted - and to see BIO and development cooperation, more listening even more to these small sectors.

I will also highlight an important element in relation to the operation and management of BIO.

The provisions concerning the management and operation of BIO have been aligned with those of Enabel. Several elements are already included in the Act of 23 November 2017 regarding the composition and functioning of the board of directors, the requirements for management capacity and the minimum content of the management contract, as well as the business plan and the rules relating to the government commissioner.

The conditions under which BIO may or may not operate in financial positions have been clarified. The present preliminary draft does not concern this.

Mrs Grovonius stated this, stressing it positively and thanking it on behalf of Minister De Croo, this project makes a good part of the synergies and collaboration with the other actors of the Belgian development policy. Increasing this synergy means increasing coherence. This is a good thing for SMEs in emerging and developing countries.