Committee on Development Ordinary meeting

08:56 - 16:27

Petra Debusscher

So I think the scrutiny should move beyond asking whether gender is mentioned and it should instead ask more whether gender has structural influence on results. Another interesting example, which I think is a good practice, is the Nigeria Democracy Program. This is really a stronger G1 mainstreaming program. It is on women's political participation and the good thing about this project is that it is really built into work with electoral bodies, parliament, political parties, civil society, media. And the project is really timely and matters a lot because women represent only around 10% of candidates in in 2023 and then fewer than 5% were elected.

So the program supports electoral reform, advocacy, work on on special seats bills and this is promising because it really addresses the how the democratic system operates. I don't call it a success story yet because again the available evidence is much stronger on activities, on on meetings, on intermediate results than on actual representation, the hard part obviously. So women's representation has not yet substantially improved and key reforms remain politically contested. So good design is not the same as as demonstrated results. Next slide please.

Then G2 actions, so the targeted actions where gender equality is the principal objective, usually have a clearer and more structural diagnosis. They directly address violence against women, political participation, economic empowerment and institutional discrimination. And a strong example here is the Breaking the Glass Ceiling in Tanzania, where the EU combines work on gender-based violence with economic empowerment, leadership and girls' education. And what makes it such a good G2 project is that it is linked very much to governance systems, to budget support.

It also has a substantial budget. It was expanded to 90 million euros and was extended to, the program was extended to six years. But it really shows how targeted action can become more than just a silo and really connect gender equality to institutions and sectoral reform. So yeah, and this is a bit what in some G2 actions is missing, is that they remain concentrated in familiar gender sectors, that there are far fewer of these in infrastructure, energy, digitalization, and major investment programs. So I think we need more G2 actions, but they must also connect to country programs, Team Europe initiatives, budget support, and policy dialogue.

Next slide, please. Yeah, so this brings me to the post-2027 framework. So the Commission proposal for the Global Europe instrument no longer contains the explicit 85 and 5% targets, as you know. And the Council has since then referred to the relevant GAP targets, but it has not written those numerical minimum standards into the regulation. So the discussion is really still open, and I think it will be up to the Parliament.

And it really matters because tracking these classifications is really not the same as guaranteeing political attention or resources. And the interviews that I conducted at the delegation level really show that these numerical targets or these quantitative targets really give gender focal persons leverage because they turn this into a management responsibility rather than leaving it to an already overburdened gender focal point. So next slide, please. To finish, I would like to highlight three priorities for the Parliament. You can find many more in the report itself.

But I think that given their importance, retaining these binding minimum standards for both mainstreaming and dedicated action in the Global Europe regulation is tremendously important. GAP IV can then operationalize those commitments, but it cannot replace the legal and budgetary weight of the Global Europe regulation. Second, I think a huge amount of mainstreaming has been achieved, but the key is now to make these gender commitments traceable from design, which is traceable right now, to results. Because it's very clear what happens in the programming phase, gender appears in the action documents, but what is less clear is what happens during the contracting phase, during the implementation phase, and during the evaluations. So as delegations are slimming down, this will even become less clear.

On top of that, I think it's important that indicators go beyond counting women and measuring access to finance, decent jobs, land, procurement opportunities, infrastructure benefits, and decision-making. And also, because there has been some data on these indicators, that there is not enough data to measure the indicators.

So this is also often a problem. And then lastly, I think it's tremendously important, especially in the current context of of backlash against women's rights, to have this targeted action protected and support women's rights organizations who are often the first line of defense when democracy is is attacked. So including small and local groups and giving them a formal role in implementation and monitoring. Yeah, last slide. So to conclude, the EU really needs both tracks and it needs a stronger version of both with a clearer accountability for whether they actually change the resources, power, and institutions.

Thank you.

16:27 - 16:49

Barry Andrews

Thank you very much, Dr. De Busscher, and for for that outline of the the contents of the report. And now we will open the floor to the DEVE co-rapporteur for the joint GAP IV report, Ms. Abir Al-Sahlani. The FEMM co-rapporteur, Mr. Paulo do Nascimento Cabral, was invited but couldn't be present today. So, Abir, you have the floor for three minutes.

16:49 - 21:53

Abir Al-Sahlani

Yes, thank you, Chair, and thank you, Professor Petra De Busscher, for your presentation of the study. I already listened to the presentation yesterday in the FEMM committee, so it's a real pleasure and a very good opportunity to listen to it again. And I hear that you also brought up new some new perspectives, so I'm very thankful. Mr. Cabral is not able to be with us because he just got a baby. He became a father to a little boy.

So congratulations to him. So his absence is to due to a very, very nice cause. Together with with my FEMM co-rapporteur, of course, Mr. Cabral, we are currently finalizing our draft and we will look carefully into the study, of course, during this process of drafting. And from the Renew side, as I mentioned yesterday, we want to see ambitious and transformative GAP IV that builds on the progress made under GAP III. A GAP that delivers transformative change.

And the GAP IV must provide EU with resources, tools, expertise, and foremost political support to turn our gender equality work into real progress on the ground for the women that are concerned. One of the successes of GAP III have clearly been the dual approach where mainstreaming actions and targeted actions are going hand in hand together, backed up by targets in the financial instrument. It is of utmost importance that we continue this approach. However, it is clear there is more to be done on both sides. Let me share my key takeaways from your study, Professor, and the actions I see are required.

And I count to four. The first one, we need to safeguard the gender targets in the financial instrument. The Commission has taken a mainstreaming-only approach and removed targets. For DEVE as a lead committee, we bear a certain responsibility here to bring the twin-track approach and targets back. Your studies are clear testimonies to the importance of that.

Second, mainstreaming is important and it has been improved, but we now need to turn into more transformative gender integration. We must move from tick boxes exercises to structure our programs and monitoring frameworks to ensure mainstreaming indeed lead to transformative change. One might say that change and transformation are equals, but they are not. You might change to the worse and we see that in the geopolitical sphere where Greenland as an example is changing because I mean the geopolitics around it is changing but it is not transforming the globe to something better. So mainstreaming must shape resources, institutions, implementation and power, as you put it in your own study, Professor.

Third, your study shows that gender mainstreaming has advanced more quickly in grants and programming than in investment modalities such as Global Gateway. This must be an alarm bell for us and a call to action to ensure GAP III addresses this gap, or we risk backtracking on our gender equality work. Fourth, we are behind on the 5% target for targeted actions. These actions are crucial, especially in times of such hard pushback on gender equality. We should increase our target here, ringfence funding for women's rights organization, but also expand targeted actions to new sectors, for example in energy and digitalization.

I think Global Gateway can offer us real interesting opportunities here. For any of this to work, GAP III needs a strong implementation and accountability framework, as you also point out. We want to see strong leadership, support on all levels, a gender architecture fit to deliver transformation, tracking of spending on gender equality and gender responsive evaluation and impact assessment. These are areas we look more into. Once again, thank you colleagues and thank you Professor for being here with us.

21:53 - 22:04

Barry Andrews

Thank you, Abir, for that input. And now we go to Robert Biedroń, who is the DEVE gender equality focal point. You have the floor, Robert. Thank you.

22:04 - 25:18

Robert Biedroń

Thank you very much, dear Chair. And thank you very much, Professor Debusscher, for your very interesting study. I read it carefully, I have it with me, and I want to tell you it's very useful also from the perspective you mention on our work on Global Europe instrument. I'm the co-rapporteur from DEVE, we work in this committee on Global Europe instrument, and in your report you state, and I quote you, "The evidence reviewed does not support a shift towards a mainstreaming-only model. On the contrary, the central lesson is that gender mainstreaming and targeted gender equality actions are complementary, not interchangeable."

And of course I fully agree with that. You've commented today that we need both tracks. But the reality is, and I will be very keen to hear the position of the Commission today, who is present as I understand and will make comments, I hope, that the Commission, both Commission and the Council, both get rid of gender targets in their respective positions on Global Europe, arguing of course that mainstreaming will be enough. And from this study we see clearly that it's not enough. And one of the reasons I think we should have both tracks is also that we should have clear track on how we spend EU taxpayers' money.

Because if we don't see how we spend the money, if we don't have clear targets, how do we measure it?

How do we know what we are paying for? And how do we see the impact? How do we see goals we have in Global Europe instrument? So, of course, we as the Parliament, we clearly disagree on this position of withdrawing the target actions from the Global Europe instrument. And we will try to, of course, make it in our proposal.

We are now, it's a subject of negotiations, but we as co-rapporteurs, we have clear position on that. But my question would be, on your, in your recommendations from European Parliament, for European Parliament, you have a bunch of recommendations. I would like to ask you which of these recommendations you find the most impactful? Whether it's increase of the percentage for gender score two actions, or is it implementation guidelines, make them stricter, for example? How would you prioritize for us, because of course there are a whole bunch of these recommendations?

Which of them you find the most important, the most urgent to implement in this very difficult circumstances we are, when there is a gender backlash, my colleagues have mentioned a lot on that. Once again, thank you very much.

25:18 - 25:32

Barry Andrews

Thank you, Robert. And any, would anybody like to take the floor? George is indicated. So, yes, we'll take the question from György and then I have a question and then we'll come back to you, Dr. Debusscher. György.

25:32 - 27:38

György Hölvényi

Thank you. Thank you, welcome back. Of course, the gender equality, it's one of the most important, can be the most important issue in the different perspective. And honestly, I am already for the third term in the Parliament and at the same time in the Development Committee, and I see how difficult, how complex this issue if you go on the ground and don't sit here around Brussels, but you go somewhere in Africa or Asia or in South America. Of course, one hand, never give up.

But for other hand, of course, we have to be very concrete. This is my guideline, to be concrete, concrete projects, yeah. And thank you for your study, thank you for your effort. You mentioned three countries: Namibia, Nigeria, and Tanzania. Please, yeah, give one of the little bit more detailed example for one of the countries, yeah, what's going on there, yeah.

I was, I visited, of course, the energy transition project in Namibia, but how do you see that is how is real connected with the gender issue, please? Or the Nigerian democracy program, or the dialogue in Tanzania. It's a short example, that would be very useful in my view. The second one is, of course, it was not mentioned, it was not part of the study directly, but I'm sure that is indirectly, yes, the education. How do you see, how does it work, especially in the NDICI support the gender equality in the formal, formal education, school education, yeah?

Do you see any kind of view on it or not? Thank you.

27:38 - 27:43

Redner 5

Okay, Leire Pajín, you have the floor, and then Marc.

27:43 - 30:32

Leire Pajín

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to speak in Spanish. Quiero empezar agradeciendo a la doctora Petra Debusscher por su riguroso estudio que nos ayuda sin duda a acertar en las políticas que tenemos que incorporar. En mi opinión, en primer lugar necesitamos una clara ambición para impulsar una política exterior y de desarrollo feminista, como están haciendo algunos Estados miembros, es el caso de España, también de Francia, de Suecia, de Alemania, entre otros, en un momento donde vemos por un lado la fuerte tendencia a reducir la ayuda, pero específicamente la ayuda destinada a la igualdad de género y a las mujeres. El dato de la OCDE es muy claro y muy desgarrador: la financiación bilateral destinada a promover la igualdad de género cayó un 13% entre el 2023 y el 2024.

Y esto viene acompañado de una corriente política perfectamente orquestada para que la financiación y las políticas de igualdad de género den pasos atrás, como estamos viendo. Por eso necesitamos efectivamente no solo políticas concretas, sino indicadores de impacto que nos permitan mostrar que es imposible el desarrollo pleno de la democracia ni del desarrollo económico y social si no hay una plena integración de las mujeres en todo el mundo. Y también necesitamos indicadores de impacto que nos permitan ver cómo las políticas transversales, pero también sectoriales de género tienen un buen impacto, no solo para las mujeres sino también para el desarrollo de esos países. Y necesitamos además, como decía mi colega Robert, que el futuro instrumento de Global Europe preserve objetivos vinculantes en el mainstreaming, pero también en las acciones específicas y que no se debiliten aquellas agencias de Naciones Unidas como UN Women que trabajan específicamente para ello. Medir el impacto es fundamental para saber qué estamos haciendo con estas políticas no solo en determinadas actividades o la participación de las mujeres, sino como decía nuestra colega Aisha Lani, a la que le quiero agradecer su compromiso, para medir la transformación real y el impacto real.

Y por eso le quería preguntar, y con esto acabo, a nuestra experta, qué indicadores debería incorporar el próximo reglamento para medir cambios estructurales y no solo actividades y participación. Gracias.

30:32 - 32:43

Marc Jongen

Thank you, Leire, and last from the floor is Marc Jongen. Marc, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, my statement will be in German. Ja, im neuen Global Europe Instrument sollen ja bis zu 20 % der Ausgaben für Genderprojekte reserviert werden, voraussichtlich also rund 40 Milliarden Euro. Wir sprechen hier also von beträchtlichen Summen. Und die vorliegende Studie zeigt, dass die bisherigen Initiativen, die die EU unter dem Begriff Gender fördert, von sehr unterschiedlicher Qualität sind, und das lässt für die Zukunft leider auch viel Steuergeldverschwendung erahnen. Einerseits findet sich da nämlich ein Panoptikum der Genderideologie und der Geldverbrennung, etwa das Women-led Green Partnership Program in Vietnam, das die Beteiligung von Frauen und Mädchen in all ihrer Diversität an grüner Transformation und Klimapolitik sicherstellen soll.

Das Programm erhält 18 Millionen Euro. Vor Ort wird es unter anderem von der Organisation Oxfam durchgeführt, die in Deutschland durch die Unterstützung von Demos gegen die Opposition und in Haiti und Liberia mit Prostitutionsskandalen aufgefallen ist.

Andererseits gibt es aber auch sinnvolle Initiativen, etwa die Bekämpfung von Genitalverstümmelung in Kenia oder die Förderung von Schulbildung für Mädchen in Tansania. Dort hat Entwicklungshilfe ihre Berechtigung, dort kommt sie den Menschen vor Ort zugute und dämmt unmenschliche Praktiken ein. Wir sprechen ja hier von Ländern, wo massive Benachteiligung von Frauen tatsächlich noch existiert, im Gegensatz zu Europa, wo sie nur von Ideologen noch behauptet wird. Die EU muss unserer Ansicht nach ihre knappen Mittel auf solche Programme beschränken und kann dann gleichzeitig Milliarden für rein ideologische Genderprojekte sparen. Warum sollen deutsche und europäische Steuerzahler Programme finanzieren, die ideologisch getrieben sind und vor allem die Kassen korrupter NGOs füllen?

Vielen Dank.

32:43 - 36:03

Barry Andrews

Right. Okay, so I just want to add a few points and comments. First of all, I think the overall concern that I have is that the removal from the Global Europe instrument of these targets sends a very clear message to delegations across the world that we are specifically downgrading gender targets and that they can adjust their work programs on an annual basis accordingly. And that's a very unambiguous, unequivocal message that gender is less relevant, less important and can be removed from time to time from individual annual programs at delegation level. And that's the a very negative message in my view.

Especially given the the report that we've received today. And I just want to explore a little bit on the numbers. You made reference to Namibia and you know, we this committee went to Namibia and we looked carefully at the Global Gateway program and I suppose we didn't really look at it from a gender lens, but we looked at it from the point of view of job creation and sustainable job creation. And it became clear to me that the figures that were presented by the Namibian government in terms of new jobs that are leveraged by our investment were grossly exaggerated. And there was a German think tank that explored this, that X-rayed this and and came to this conclusion that the it was exaggerated by a factor of six.

So I'm just wondering if you've referenced Namibia here, which figures are you relying on as inputs here? And I think you're right to really illuminate this problem that we have a great deal of access to figures in terms of inputs, but we don't know anything about impact. And if that's the case, then it it requires a very, very serious different approach. And I think it's important as well to point out that where all of this fits in terms of Global Gateway is critically important. A lot of projects, and we saw it in Tanzania, that are gender focused, even G2 projects, are labeled as Global Gateway projects.

And realistically, you know, we it's not I'm not sure that they get the attention that they deserve. I think most of the attention is focused on the economic projects of investment in digital and transport and energy. But when there are G2 projects that are labeled as Global Gateway, there is not the same attention to them. So I'd just be interested to hear your view of what feedback did you get from delegations on the whether any of these gender projects are in fact properly so labeled as Global Gateway projects or is there any suggestion that that could be changed? So just a few points that I hope you might be able to get to in your replies.

So we will now hand the floor back to you, Dr. Debusscher, to reply to those comments and questions. You have roughly five, seven minutes, I'd say. Thank you.

36:03 - 43:52

Petra Debusscher

Dear Chair, honorable members, thank you so much for these interesting questions. So, yeah, first of all, yeah, on the investing more in Global Gateway, I'm really happy that you brought this up because indeed this is for me like the last frontier that needs to be taken. And if you look at the data on investment on Global Gateway, we really see that this is the area where gender mainstreaming lags furthest behind. And I know that DG INTPA is working on this. It has developed specific guidance and training and has now extended the use of gender and inequality markers to EFSD+ operations.

But if you look at data on the most recently published portfolio data that's covering 2021 to 2024, this shows that only 63% of these blending operations and 59% of guarantees were marked either G1 or G2, which is well below the 85% target. So if you look at specific issue areas, we are not reaching the target. Okay, there are no newer portfolio-wide figures yet to demonstrate that this gap has been closed, but I really agree with you that this is an area to keep an eye on. So, yeah, I liked that you called it, yeah, a call to action. So, yeah, the problem is not per se the absence of tools, but it's more like ensuring that these tools will actually shape investment, design, monitoring, and results.

And that matters especially in Global Gateway, in blending, in guarantees, private sector mobilization, because this is becoming so increasingly central to EU external action. And then maybe quickly touching upon what the Chair said. The problem is that, because you also mentioned Global Gateway, no, Global Gateway is not getting the same attention. And the problem is that responsibility for gender mainstreaming is not spread evenly, or expertise is not spread evenly within the delegation. Yes, you have the gender focal person, you have people working on projects, education, health, etc.

They are involved in the programming, in the planning. But as soon as you come into the contract phase, the political section, these people do not necessarily have the same agenda, do not necessarily have the same expertise.

So this is one of the recommendations that I also wrote in the other report: get a clearer link between political dialogue, the political section, and the work that is being done on gender. So yeah, then moving on. Yeah, this was something that was brought up by Honorable Member Biedroń. Yes, I really like that line of arguing that it's our responsibility, because sometimes people say, yeah, but it will add more work, another bureaucratic layer. But this focus on results, responsibility to taxpayers, how do we spend taxpayers' money, what are we actually paying for, I think this is tremendously important.

So I don't think we should get rid of the gender targets. The argument that the Commission is often making is, but not to worry because it will be still in GAP, and there is a reference to GAP. But if I talk to people working on the ground, especially people working there for a long time, they really describe that the hard targets in Global Europe have a much bigger effect than the GAP, because the GAP is just, how did they call it, it's like a programming document. It's like on human rights or on all these kind of topics. And I remember speaking at a gender focal person who was there also in 2012, I think.

And I remember that she told me then, okay, I have the GAP and I'm waving with the GAP, but still my colleagues say, okay, fine, you can do what you want, but they are laughing at me when I say soon everybody will have to do this. Now, so much later, this institutional culture shift that GAP II really wanted to install has arrived, because there is barely any speech where it will not be mentioned. So yeah, in that sense, I think, because you were also asking what should we prioritize, there have been many, many useful bureaucratic innovations and tools that have contributed to the point that we are now. Institutionalization is really good, transformation is still less. But I think in terms of impact, if you had to choose one, then the binding targets have been tremendously important.

FEMM proposed in its opinion, which is also proposed a lot by civil society, by advocates, is the 85, 20, and 5 proposal or target. So 85% G1 and G2, 20% G2, and then 5% for women's rights organizations. And I think that, because this was also mentioned by several members, that indeed the context is different for the EU. There are a lot of challenges, you have this whole new geopolitical order. But I think this really goes hand in hand with standing with our principles.

And whether you call it gender ideology or you call it equality between men and women, that doesn't really matter. Equality between men and women really is an EU value that we want to promote in the way we work. So, and this goes hand in hand with promoting democracy, with yeah.

So, I'm not sure, I see that my time is up. I'm not sure if I have answered all the questions, but thank you so much for great questions and great discussion.

43:52 - 44:15

Barry Andrews

Thank you very much, Petra, for your answers and those questions. And we will now give the floor to the Commission for their input. And we are joined by Chiara Adamo, who is the acting director and head of the Gender Equality, Human Rights and Democratic Governance Unit in INTPA. Chiara, you're very welcome and you have the floor.

44:15 - 47:26

Chiara Adamo

Thank you so much for giving us the floor and very much welcome both studies commissioned by the DEVE Committee and the FEMM Committee. We really provide valuable additional evidence to feed into the preparations for the next GAP, the GAP 4. We note a strong convergence of findings and recommendations also with the contributions of stakeholders that we gathered through a call for evidence earlier this year. We have received more than 200 contributions from broad range of stakeholders, civil society organizations, international organizations, member states. So nearly 100 position papers have been provided.

So it is encouraging to see high level of interest, but also broad coherence and as I said, convergence in the contributions, which really comfort us in underlining both the relevance of continuing throughout this policy developments, but also the urgency at the time where gender equality is under increased pressure in many context. So as all this evidence shows, also we are happy to note that it is acknowledged we are not starting from scratch. What we call the GAP 3 has put in place a solid foundation and the direction of travel that we want to continue to follow. As pointed out in the study, we have indeed progressed with regards to the achievement of the targets. We are about to achieve the 85% target of gender mainstreaming.

So it's both gender responsive and targeted actions, which shows that that target is not actually unrealistic, but it can be done and it must be done. We are close to the gender principal action target, the G2, with 4%, but indeed we are not there in terms of what we put there, the 5%. I think what was helping us here to achieve progress was also that when we came into the programming phase at the beginning of the GAP 3, we really clearly instructed delegations to develop at least one G2 action in their overall programming. So that has helped. Just because Honorable Member Pedron asked what's the formal Commission position is in the original proposal for the MFF and once the Global Europe regulation has reduced overall the number of targets compared to the current NDICI Global Europe, but it still requires in a recital implementation in line with the EU gender action plans, including the targets defined there in the post-27 action plan.

So just nuancing this. And of course, the proposal also has a key provision on gender equality as a specific objective and gender mainstreaming of all actions.

47:26 - 49:43

Redner 11

Finally, I remind you about the performance regulation which proposes a more consistent performance framework across the next MFF, including tracking of commitments for gender equality. And I think we all agree about the need for indicators, for good performance tracking, quality of data and quality of implementation beyond the figures. So thanks also for acknowledging that delivery depends on institutional culture shift. I think we worked a lot during these years on that, including gender-responsive leadership trainings, both in headquarters but very much in delegations where both ambassadors and head of cooperation actually have been following and we are still operating these programs. Finally, as we go forward, I take note of all your comments.

What we got as feedback from delegation is also that we really need to be mindful about increased fragility context around the world. So that will require specific attention in GAP IV and also attention to how to really implement actions in those post-conflict and fragility settings. And you said it all, GAP IV must continue to and better adapt to new funding modalities and to our priorities. So we are already working on integrating fully gender equality within the Global Gateway implementation, innovative finance process you mentioned. We have targets also applying to EFSD+ and so, but we also need to work very much with Team Europe, with the member states and with the multilateral development banks and IFIs to achieve this objective.

So to end, again, just to reassure you that from our end at the Commission level, we are working towards taking into account your comments, but very much working towards achieving a good level of ambition as the rapporteur has requested. Thanks.

49:43 - 58:18

Barry Andrews

Well, thank you, Chiara. And yeah, we just to re-emphasize the point that the committee and indeed the report indicates a concern that if on the one hand the mainstream and targets are working in the current NDICI, the danger obviously is that by taking them out, by removing those targets, it is interpreted as a message that this is not as important as previously and it will be harder for those who promote such programs to make sure they're part of annual work plans. So that is a real concern that we have and we hope that you will take it away from this meeting and indeed from the report that we've just discussed. So thank you everybody for your inputs into this particular item agenda. We will resume with the jointly with the Subcommittee on Human Rights in about five minutes.

So in the meantime, we'll just take a short break and thank you, Dr. Debusscher, once again.

Okay, we move to item eight then right on time. Or, sorry, we're a little bit late. I beg your pardon. We're a little bit late. I thought it was 11:00.

So, we will now have an exchange of views with Mr. Olivier De Schutter, professor UCLouvain, chair of the New Economies for Eradicating Poverty and former the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, as well as Ms. Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, who is president and CEO of the African Center for Economic Transformation. So, we're going to discuss the link between poverty and growth, which is a central issue in the international development debate. It's also obviously at the core of our mandate and particularly in the treaties which guide the works and policy objectives of development policy. So, we are also thinking about the shape of the development agenda beyond 2030 and the current SDG 8 includes the target of sustained per capita economic growth, but it is broadly recognized that that growth measured in GDP does not automatically translate into increased well-being. UN roadmap on poverty beyond growth, which we will hear about today, goes even further, arguing that in low and middle income countries, the nature and direction of growth must fundamentally change.

Secondly, the EU and other donors are debating the future objectives and principles of development cooperation. There is a clear trend to move away from traditional donor-recipient relations to mutually beneficial partnerships, focusing more on economic cooperation, private sector investment and trade. This is also what many partner countries have mentioned. So, the question is under which conditions we can truly contribute to poverty eradications. So, we're here jointly with the chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee and I will therefore ask Mounir, s'il vous plaît, c'est à vous la parole.

Merci.

58:18 - 01:01:10

Mounir Satouri

Cher collègue, cher Barry, en vrai, merci. Merci de nous offrir cette occasion conjointe d'évoquer le lien entre croissance économique et pauvreté et par conséquent entre croissance économique et respect du droit humain. En effet, la pauvreté n'est pas seulement une question de niveau de revenus, elle constitue une atteinte à la dignité humaine et compromet l'exercice effectif de nombreux droits fondamentaux, qu'il s'agisse du droit à l'alimentation, au logement, à la santé, à l'éducation, à la justice ou à la participation à la vie politique. Le cadre international des droits humains rappelle clairement le droit de chacun à un niveau de vie suffisant et les obligations juridiques pour les États en la matière. En 2023, le Haut-Commissaire des Nations Unies aux droits de l'homme a lancé le concept d'une économie des droits de l'homme.

Selon les principes de l'économie des droits de l'homme, l'indicateur principal de succès économique n'est pas le PIB ou la maximisation des profits, mais la réalisation progressive de tous les droits de l'homme, économiques, sociaux, culturels, civiques et politiques. Aujourd'hui plus que jamais, et en écho avec cette approche, nous devons comprendre une chose essentielle. La lutte contre la pauvreté ne peut se dissocier de la promotion des droits humains, de l'égalité et de l'inclusion sociale. Sans une action volontariste et des politiques ambitieuses, nous risquons de ne pas atteindre cet objectif de développement durable d'ici 2030.

C'est pourquoi nous devons agir sans tarder avec détermination. Je suis très heureux de souhaiter la bienvenue parmi nous à deux experts de haut niveau, tu l'as rappelé Barry, qui vont nous présenter des approches respectives sur cette question. Tout d'abord, Olivier De Schutter, professeur à l'Université catholique de Louvain, président de la plateforme économique pour éradiquer la pauvreté. Vous avez terminé il y a peu votre mandat de rapporteur spécial des Nations Unies sur l'extrême pauvreté et les droits de l'homme. Dans le cadre de ce mandat, vous avez été l'auteur de plusieurs rapports et êtes à l'initiative de la feuille de route pour éradiquer la pauvreté au-delà de la croissance, qui a été présentée au Conseil des droits de l'homme des Nations Unies le 25 juin dernier.

Bienvenue également à Madame Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, connectée en ligne. Vous êtes présidente et directrice générale du Centre africain pour la transformation économique et aborderez notamment la question des effets de la croissance économique sur le développement et la pauvreté du point de vue des pays du Sud global. Vous aurez chacun sept minutes et on va commencer par Monsieur De Schutter, présent ici en salle. Allez-y.

01:01:10 - 01:01:10

Merci.