Summaries of the debates on the forum

   Summary 16 (6 to 12 September)

FOLLOWING IS A MACHINE TRANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL IN FRENCH. IT HAS BEEN EDITED FOR MISTRANSLATION ONLY. THE ORIGINAL IN FRENCH IS AVAILABLE ON THIS WEB SITE AT: <http://www.ue-acp.org/fr/forum/syntheses/synt16.html>

---

KEY WORDS: PROGRESS OF THE DEBATE

* * Title: Summary 16 (6 to 12 September) * *

by: Anne SIMON <anne.simon@skynet.be>
<http://www.ue-acp.org/fr/forum/presentations/simon.html>

°°° Abstract:
Backing civil initiatives is necessary in parallel to the development of the budgetary aid. Without this, budgetary aid would only be a solution of facility for the management of aid, which would risk in fact to go in opposition to the political principles otherwise proposed in the future EU-ACP cooperation framework.
Some precision on the terms of budgetary aid, aid on the EU's own budget and aid on EDF funds. °°°

---

3.10 Making of Budgetary Aid a Collective Process of Evolution of Governance

Let's recall here that budgetary aid is a financial aid granted directly to the national budgets. Until now, to the exception of support programs to the structural adjustment essentially in the social sectors, the EU-ACP cooperation has concentrated its EDF financing on programs of activities and infrastructure predefined and jointly managed with the ACP administrations.

As explained by Guy Petitpierre at the time of the restitution of the seminar <http://www.ue-acp.org/en/documents/restitution.html#3.10> " The political determination underlying this instrument [budgetary aid], is to manage to insert aid into state policy. The point is no longer to substitute or to interfere but, after a structural discussion on all the components of governance, to give means from the inside and no longer to inject them from the outside. Every state should be able to manage according to its own procedures and not according to the procedure of each of financial backers with which it is dealing." Such a change cannot happen in a radical way, it is an evolution that will take long years depending on the different countries.

Thierry Lassalle shares his puzzlement as to the development of the present budgetary aid in the EU-ACP negotiations progress report. This solution is a "false simplicity" whereas other "big principles" are more contradictory if one considers their practical application (good governance, eradication of poverty, development of the market economy, regionalization). It is otherwise a given that "it is necessary to review the operation of the project-programs".

In answers to these contradictions and to these challenges of cooperation reforms, it seems that budgetary aid is only a simple solution of facility found by negotiators and macro economists.

But what will be the consequences of this option without democratic control by the society of the administration? Won't the aid risk in this case to reinforce situations of privilege or of prevarication in total opposition with principles of good governance that one defends otherwise?

Thierry Lassalle starts to wonder if this must not lead to more complex forms of aid for which Delegations of the European Union will be in first line. It is the only means to manage these contradictions and these difficulties.

In parallel to the development of budgetary aid, it is necessary to also " propose an aid to the backing of actors, to the backing of capacities of control and arbitration, to qualification". So that " civil initiatives are implemented" and that they can "by the way of the media in particular (…) inflect the budgetary decisions".

Jules Dumas Nguebou also advocates this principle of a joint development of budgetary aid and the backing of actors.

He remains however skeptical on the way in which are conducted the programs "of good governance" that too often serve as an alibi for the access to financing, without real basis. There too, it should be about subtle operations that combine training, information, adaptation of institutions.

3.11 Backing the Actors and the Processes by Combining the Lome Convention and the European Union's Own Budget

(see http://www.ue-acp.org/en/documents/restitution.html#3.11)

The author of the summary specifies some elements of definition.

The financial and technical cooperation in the framework of the Convention of Lome are financed by the European Development Fund (EDF). Expenses of the EDF are governed by the principle of joint management between the European Commission and the ACP States.

It is in this context that the signatory countries of the Convention have named a National Authorizing Officer of the EDF, and that projects are jointly managed by the ACP administration and the Delegation of the European Commission. The 8th EDF is in progress. Amounts committed vary from one year to another (about 1.5 billion euros).

In corollary to this source of financing, the European Commission has available, on its budget, a chapter for external relations and cooperation.

About 70 budgetary lines for specific orientations (tropical forests, gender and development, food aid, joint financing NGO for example) are voted by the European Parliament and serve to finance actions of development in all "third" countries (non European), of which the ACP countries.

Therefore some 800 to 1 billion euros can be committed as "non Lome".

These funds are managed by the European Commission. According to regulations of each among them, they make it possible to finance actions of cooperation conducted by the NGOs, survey bureaus, research institutes, etc. without a "double signature".

Depending on the origin of the financing (EDF or Own Budget of the European Union) the methods of management are therefore different. It is necessary of course to distinguish this aid on "own budget" from the budgetary aid discussed in the topic.

contact : publication@ue-acp.org