Q&A: "We Are Generous but Not Naïve"

BRUSSELS, Jan 11, 2008 (IPS) - One of the most persistent criticisms levelled at the European Union's conduct towards poor countries is that it gives with one hand and takes with the other. Despite being the world's largest donor of development aid, the EU pursues trade, agriculture and fisheries policies that many anti-poverty activists blame for perpetuating - and exacerbating - global inequalities.

As a result, any good done by aid, the argument goes, is usurped by how the Union can imperil the livelihoods of small farmers or fishermen by flooding their markets with lavishly subsidised exports or by helping European vessels overexploit fish stocks in foreign waters.

Complaints of that nature were heard regularly during 2007 as the EU executive, the European Commission, sought to negotiate a series of free trade deals, or economic partnership agreements (EPAs), with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) bloc. While nearly 80 ACP countries took part in these talks, just 35 signed agreements before a Dec. 31 deadline stipulated by the Commission. Signatories have given an undertaking to open at least 80 percent of their markets to goods from Europe.

Shortly before assuming his duties as EU development commissioner in 2004, Louis Michel stated that the Union must ensure greater 'coherence' between its different policies that have an impact on poor countries. But how much progress has been made since?

Michel, formerly Belgium's foreign minister, spoke to IPS Brussels correspondent David Cronin.

IPS: In a recent report, the European Commission gave a positive assessment of the progress you have made on increasing coherence between development and other policies. Yet the report admitted that EU officials who are not specialising in development issues tend not be adequately informed about them. How can you improve that situation?

LM: Officials already know that when they are dealing with a dossier or propose a measure that will have an impact on developing countries, they have to provide details of their work to our services for development.

We've made considerable progress. Are there many more things to do? The main thing relates to agricultural subsidies. By 2011, 90 percent of subsidies given to agriculture will have no link to direct production. That will be a drastic reduction.

I believe the best way to ensure policy coherence is to affirm a principle under which the EU's development work is not only done by the commissioner for development or ministers for development. All ministers who directly or indirectly control a policy relating to development must play a role. I hope there will be meetings of ministers for trade, finance, education about using this unexploited potential.

IPS: Is it not an exaggeration to claim that there is now a harmonious relationship between the EU's policies on trade and development?

LM: The progress has been considerable. When we were negotiating the economic partnership agreements, we said to our (ACP) partners: 'You don't have to liberalise 20 percent of your trade, you will have 15 years to do so, in order to protect sensitive products'.

If you do not think we have done a lot, look at how we have reduced agricultural subsidies. Look at how we allow sugar from outside the EU to come to our markets. These are significant. They are not acts of charity.

IPS: But the EU's new Lisbon treaty contains a clause committing the Union to abolishing all barriers that European firms face in doing business abroad. Memos prepared by the Commission have made clear that it regards strong environmental and safety rules in developing countries as barriers to trade, even though those rules could be in the long-term interests of those countries.

LM: I don't know what you are speaking about.

IPS: Before Christmas, I spoke to Rob Davies, the deputy trade minister in South Africa. He told me that South Africa refused to sign an EPA because the EU wanted it to contain a 'most favoured nation' clause (under which any trade preferences it agrees in future with major world economies would automatically be extended to the EU). He said that placing such requirements on South Africa would affect its national sovereignty.

LM: Evidently, it is a question of national sovereignty. But it's also a question of sovereignty for Europe.

The European Commission and our member states provide 56 percent of all development assistance in the world. It is difficult to say that Europe should let our partner countries treat our economic adversaries better than us. We are generous but not naive.

IPS: I've spoken to activists from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Africa who contend that you have used the fact that Europe is such a major aid donor as a weapon to put pressure on developing countries.

LM: Pressure to do what?

IPS: To sign the EPAs.

LM: Jan. 1 2008 has passed and has there been a catastrophe? I don't know what the NGOs were speaking about.

It's true that countries like Senegal were against the EPAs and didn't sign. But Senegal is a least-developed country. (Under a scheme known as Everything But Arms), it has complete and total and unlimited access to our markets. It can flood Europe with its products without any quotas or tax. And it can hit goods from Europe with an import tax. I don't know what the problem was for Senegal.

IPS: Moving on to a different topic: biofuels. Jean Ziegler, the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food, is worried that biofuels could be grown instead of crops that should be used to feed the hungry. What do you think about his call for governments to impose an international moratorium on setting targets for the increased use of biofuels?

LM: I agree with him.

IPS: But the EU has a goal under which biofuels will account for one-tenth of its transport fuel by 2010.

LM: The risks Mr Ziegler has spoken about are real. It's good to issue warnings on the illusions about biofuels.

It is clear the use of forests for the manufacture of biofuels is dangerous. The use of arable land to produce the resources necessary for biofuels could be detrimental to agricultural production.

IPS: Have you spoken to (EU agriculture commissioner) Mariann Fischer Boel about this?

LM: She knows my views. We will be having a meeting in Brussels with experts on biofuels and palm oil production. This merits reflection.

IPS: There have been studies suggesting that stocks of some fish in West Africa have declined by 50 percent over the past 30 years. The fisheries agreements that the EU signs with African countries have been blamed for this decline. During 2008, a new series of so-called fisheries partnership agreements with Africa will come into effect. Will they be any different?

LM: The finance given under fisheries partnership agreements is often more than development aid. For example, in the case of Mauritania, it is five times more than the financial 'envelope' for development.

On fish stocks, it is evident that we need a scientific evaluation. The Commission is taking this into account.

IPS: Finally, what is your view on the turmoil following the election in Kenya? Could the EU play any role there?

LM: The EU will leave the Africans to sort out their own problems if they can. There will be no interference, because that could be counterproductive.

There is a necessity for President (Mwai) Kibaki to accept the mediation of Mr (John) Kufuor (the Ghanian president and African Union leader) and to share power with the opposition.

I will be having a telephone discussion with Mr Kufuor and I am trying to speak with the teams of Mr Kibaki and (defeated presidential candidate Raila) Odinga. I can't say more for the moment. (END)

Send your comments to the editor