18 May 2000

JOINT NGO COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION's COMMUNICATION: THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY'S DEVELOPMENT POLICY.

The May 18^th Development Council will discuss the EC's development policy in the form of a Communication to Council and Parliament. The undersigned NGOs are encouraged by the paper's focus on combating poverty, its recognition of the weaknesses of the current EC aid programme and the need to concentrate its resources on those issues where the EC can provide added value. However, we are disappointed by the paper's lack of recognition of the importance of natural resources and a healthy environment, its dogmatic line of arguing in favour of free trade and economic growth and its inadequate consultation with civil society. These points are briefly elaborated below. A more detailed paper is available on request and at Fern's website[1].

Proper consultation with civil society is essential.

The Commission has publicly stated that it has widely consulted civil society. This statement is not true. Environment NGOs have not been consulted nor have NGOs in the South. European Development NGOs were asked to comment on the first draft paper 10 days before the deadline for comments. In order to ensure the widest possible consultation, the European Commission should have extended the period of public consultation by a minimum of one month enabling NGOs in North and South to analyse and respond to the paper. Furthermore the Commission should have organised meetings with NGOs to discuss its proposed policy. As the Council demanded 'the widest possible consultation' in the elaboration of the new development policy. We encourage the Council to demand a proper public consultation be carried out before the adoption of the new development policy statement at the Council meeting in November. Southern based NGOs as well as European environmental and development NGOs, human rights and indigenous peoples organisations are to be included in the consultation and their input must be integrated into the new policy.

Conservation and sustainable use of natural resources should be listed as a priority area.

Environmental degradation and resource depletion are serious problems in many countries in the South, affecting poor people most, as it is the world's poor who frequently depend most on natural resources. The paper states that the development policy will be an integral part of the overall sustainable development strategy to be presented in Gothenburg which will dovetail economic, social and environmental policies. However this communication does not give equal weight to the social, environment and economic pillars of sustainable development and puts too much emphasis on the economic side. Insufficient attention is paid to the fact that  sustainable resource management is an essential condition for survival. The staggering deforestation rate and the depletion of fish stocks are just two examples.  We demand that in conformity with the stated objectives of the Amsterdam Treaty the Council rectifies this omission and ensures that "sustainable use of natural resources " is added to the listed priority areas. This is also in line with the objectives agreed by the DAC strategy for the 21^st century.

A clear analysis should be made of the links between trade and poverty alleviation

The paper acknowledges that globalisation involves increased risks of marginalisation, that the gap between rich and poor has nearly tripled in the last 35 years and that the amount of people living on less than 1US$ a day has increased in all continents except in East Asia and the Middle East/North Africa. The paper also recognises that "certain forms of economic growth do not lead to a fall in poverty levels" and that some development policies have had a negative impact on poverty and have contributed to marginalisation of vulnerable groups. Nonetheless the paper assumes that economic growth, hence trade and macro-economic reform programmes, are the main answers to poverty alleviation. To solve these contradictions the paper only suggests "a greater focus on the nature of poverty and the complex causes behind it". The link between poverty alleviation and economic growth does not follow in all cases[2]. We therefore encourage the Council to challenge the Commission to develop a more detailed analysis of the relationship between poverty, economic growth, integration in the market economy and environmental degradation.

EU policies in other sectors should not have negative impacts on countries in the South.

EU's trade, agriculture, fisheries as well as other policies should not negatively affect developing countries[3]. It is therefore very disappointing that the draft development policy only attempts to make negative impacts of other policies known rather than preventing them. The paper states  "It is still possible that the EU makes the political choice to go ahead with a policy despite its potentially negative, indirect and unintended impact on developing countries. In these cases it is important to ensure that this decision is made in full knowledge of its indirect consequences". This honest statement shows that trade and agriculture policies will prevail even if they have a negative impact on developing countries. We hope the Council can make its position clear on the need for more policy coherence and will ensure a sustainability impact analysis (SIA) of the forecast impacts of EU policies becomes mandatory. SIA findings would have to lead to a change of policies or mitigating measures before these policies are adopted.

The world should remain a culturally diverse place.

There is no mention in the paper of indigenous peoples in spite of the fact that these groups are often the most marginalised and vulnerable groups in many countries. Moreover, the paper does not mention the Council resolution on indigenous peoples adopted by the Council at its meeting in November 1998 in which the Council sets out its development cooperation approach[4]. We expect that the Council will reiterate its resolution of November 1998 and ensures the stated objectives of the Indigenous Peoples Resolution are incorporated in the Council's November Development Policy Statement.

Show the three pillars of sustainable development in chosen priority areas

The choice for transport as a priority area seems to be based more on existing Commission expertise[5] in the sector than on demand. The paper mentions that "recent evaluation reports have recognised the quality and added value of Commission support to transport in developing countries". This statement is surprising as several independent evaluations of EC aid have been extremely critical about EC funded road projects, many of which have been carried out without proper Environmental Impact Assessments. Our own experience shows us that particularly EC funded road projects are heavily criticised by NGOs in the South. Of the other six priority areas three are clearly trade related. There is therefore no balance between environmental, social and economic elements of sustainable development. Therefore, as a minimum the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources should be listed as a priority.

Improvement of quality of EC aid

Whatever policy paper is finally adopted all will depend on its implementation by the Commission services. As the paper rightly states there is insufficient staff for the amount of aid to be disbursed. There is also a lack of expertise in the Commission particularly with regard to environmental and social (indigenous peoples, gender) issues. Member states have increased the amount of funds disbursed by the Commission without providing the Commission with the necessary human resources to manage its ambitious aid programme. We therefore urge the member states to rectify this situation.